Post #563298

2026-03-07 02:27 UTC

@dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz @kentpitman@climatejustice.social @ramin_hal9001@fe.disroot.org @screwlisp@gamerplus.org @cdegroot@mstdn.ca The point of Turing equivalence is that even though we have different forms for expressing algorithms and there are apparently vast differences in comprehensibility, any differences in what can utltimately be achieved by the various forms of expression is an illusion. We have, thus far, only one notion of computability. (which is not to say there can't be others out there, but nobody's found them yet) 2/n

Replies (1)

@wrog@mastodon.murkworks.net 2026-03-07 02:30

@dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz @kentpitman@climatejustice.social @ramin_hal9001@fe.disroot.org @screwlisp@gamerplus.org @cdegroot@mstdn.ca I believe expressiveness is a cognition issue, i.e., having to do with how the human brian works and how we learn. If you train yourself to recognize certain kinds of patterns, then certain kinds of problems become easier to solve. ... and right there I've just summarized every mathematics, science, and programming curriiculum on the planet. What's "easy" depends the patterns you've learned. The more patterns you know, the more problems you can solve. Every set of patterns that you can re-express as sub-patterns of one big super-pattern that's small enough to keep in your head is a win. I'm not actually sure there's anything more to "intelligence" than this. 3/n

Open ##563360