From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Mar 6 14:38:11 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l26JcAZn010402 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:38:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l26Jc5gF005639 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:38:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 24049 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2007 19:38:05 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 6 Mar 2007 19:38:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 6924 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2007 19:38:04 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 6 Mar 2007 19:38:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 9405 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2007 19:37:57 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 6 Mar 2007 19:37:57 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3641692 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:37:56 -0500 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 5105 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2007 19:37:53 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 6 Mar 2007 19:37:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 5626 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2007 19:37:50 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 6 Mar 2007 19:37:50 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l26JbnRP010384 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:37:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l26Jbnrh010383 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:37:49 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200703061937.l26Jbnrh010383@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:37:49 -0500 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Position Paper #2 To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2748/Tue Mar 6 12:23:21 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 892 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Position Paper #2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A student asks: | | In my position paper #2 draft, I say that I agree with premise 1 and | premise 2 *as definitions* , and do not give any explanation of why I | agree with them. Is this acceptable, or should I come up with some | justifications for my final submission? I think you should give at least a 1-sentence justification for your beliefs. E.g., for P1, you could point out the widespread acceptance of Turing's Thesis or the fact that all formal versions of "algorithm" are logically equivalent, etc. (Of course, we're in the middle of examining potential counterexamples to the thesis, but...) And for P2, you could point out that most obvious or clear cases of computers satisfy the definition, etc.