Lawrence:
> | Hype or ego -- did you check out the series of photos of Himself
>
> I missed that. I went for the interviews and papers
Check it out -- you'll crease your knickers. It's totally beyond belief.
> | +Is+ he math rather than computer (a la Douglas Hofstaader)?
"Algorithm"
> | could cover both.
>
> Yes, I think so. He wrote in 1988,
Hey, I go +way+ back before that -- met my first computer in 64, and she was
wearing valves.
> I discovered this evening, "While
> equations involve continuous variables, digital computers can treat only
> discrete digital quantities. The real numbers that correspond to
continuous
> variables in the equations must be represented on the computer by packets
of
> bits, typically in the form of 32- or 64-bit numbers in floating point
> format. "
Blah_speak, nah? (Not you, Him).
> That doesn't prove he's a mathstype, but remarks like that - lots of
them -
> and his authoring of _Mathematica_ etc convinces me. He's one of them. The
> engineers seem happy if they can be accurate to within acceptable
tolerances
> and the kinds of people I relate to are studying copy protection systems
and
> worry about other forms of discretion; or are writing text generators.
[Ah, he prolly a Hard AI type.]
When did +you+ lose your computerist Trotskyist innocence?
{Oy voy, Randolph and Alison, is that enough non-PC to get me banned?
Trying hard. Honest.}
Totally lost me. baby.
I is bumb-bunny.
But I'd still score him as computer rather than math. Respect.
> I followed links through a batch of his papers from the 80s on cellular
> automata; and to my unmathematical mind it looks like Conway
God, I tried to track down a simple Conway generation program, and you know
what? It'd be easier to find The First Eliza.
> But I'm sure he's a splendid fellow making subtle incremental developments
> on the shoulders of giants who lack his publicity machine - he's doing a
> lecture tour and has plans for curriculum materials, you know
Nah -- as you said earlier, he's most likely ...
Lost it. Suddenly.
He used to be one of the singers
And now is one of the dumbs.
Robin
> it'd be exciting if he gave us an inclusive metaphor for poetry making but
I
> am doubtful
Godel.
How come no one's yet mentioned him?
R2
> I'll look at
>
> | http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/
>
> tomorrow - sounds good
Oh, Rictor's really good. +Well+ good. On the 18thC stuff. Outside that,
dunno. I hae me doots on his working on the Renaissance. But as I pushed
gay=queer=minion back to 1611, got a bit of street cred riding on this.
R2.
|