Download Game! Currently 77 players and visitors. Last logged in:ArgainPereAranonDelion

BatMUD Forums > Bs > Re: spam and gödel

 
 
#1
27 Oct 2003 11:15
 
 
Jayarejay wrote:
algorithm for > determining, "spam".

I think we all can agree that if repeated "3"'s and repeated "1"'s are
spamming, then also repeated "4" = 3 + 1 is spamming, and so forth for all the
required number theoretic axioms. Gödel's incompleteness theorem then states
that there is no such algorithm, which outputs "true" for every string x which
is spam. Also with the same argument we get that being a spam is not finitely
axiomatizable, so what you're asking is impossible to do.

 
 
 
Slobber
1y, 66d, 19h, 2m, 53s old
Level:
77
 
 
#2
27 Oct 2003 11:22
 
 
Slobber wrote:
Jayarejay wrote:
algorithm for > determining, "spam".

I think we all can agree that if repeated "3"'s and repeated "1"'s are
spamming, then also repeated "4" = 3 + 1 is spamming, and so forth for all the
required number theoretic axioms. Gödel's incompleteness theorem then states
that there is no such algorithm, which outputs "true" for every string x which
is spam. Also with the same argument we get that being a spam is not finitely
axiomatizable, so what you're asking is impossible to do.
Obviously, Gödel never heard about perl and regular expressions!

Generic Perl Zealots theorem states that there definetely is no such string
that cannot be matched by regexp's. Q.E.D. (whatever that means)

--
I type this every time


If I had all the money I'd spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink.
-- Sir Henry Rawlinson

 
 
 
Fizzl
C o d e s l a v e
1y, 325d, 0h, 53m, 28s old
Level:
32 [Wizard]
 
 
#3
30 Oct 2003 02:01
 
 
Quote:
Jayarejay wrote:
computable algorithm for > determining, \"spam\".

I think we all can agree that if repeated \"3\"\'s and repeated
\"1\"\'s
Quote:
are spamming, then also repeated \"4\" = 3 + 1 is spamming, and so
forth for all the required number theoretic axioms. Gödel\'s
incompleteness theorem then states that there is no such algorithm,
which outputs \"true\" for every string x which is spam. Also with
the same argument we get that being a spam is not finitely
axiomatizable, so what you\'re asking is impossible to do.
Damn, and people say pure mathematics is useless. See how much they
know!

(That\'s a good one. Wish I could be clever like that.)



Joseph / JayAreJay

 
 
 
Jayarejay
15d, 16h, 13m, 22s old
Level:
29