From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Apr 2 13:46:01 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 l32Hk0tV027631 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l32HjtqN060641 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:45:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 25856 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 17:45:55 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 17:45:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 1455 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 17:45:54 -0000 Received: from defer.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.58) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 17:45:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 7058 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 17:45:49 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by defer.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 17:45:49 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4309169 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:45:49 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 138 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 17:45:49 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 17:45:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 16951 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 17:45:48 -0000 Received: from hadar.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.1) by smtp3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 17:45:48 -0000 Received: from hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (ag33@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l32HjmfU000060 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:45:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from ag33@localhost) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l32HjmLg000059; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:45:48 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UB-Relay: (hadar.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:45:48 -0400 Reply-To: Albert Goldfain Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: Albert Goldfain Subject: some comments on pp4 To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (hadar.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 0.88.6/2997/Mon Apr 2 06:19:52 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1618 Premise #9 in pp4 states: "There is no computational or other relevant difference between the hardwired computer program and its textual counterpart (except for the different media in which they are implemented, one being hardwired and the other being written on, say, a piece of paper)." I got a question after recitation as to how "or other relevant difference" should be interpreted. Dr. Rapaport may want to comment if I am incorrect, but I interpret this as "other relevant *computational* difference" rather than "other relevant *legal* difference". There is good reason to add this clause though. After pp2 and pp3, we have seen that what counts as computational will depend on the "what is computation?" and "is X a computer?" questions....rather than revisit those questions in this paper, we can instead just say that if X and Y have "no computational or other relevant difference" then they are equivalent under whatever model of computation you agree with and using your favorite definition of a "computer". Another thing I wanted to mention: it is important realize that arguments with inconsistencies are not necessarily worthless arguments. In proofs by contradiction (reductio ad absurdem arguments)...the argument author *WANTS* to arrive at an inconsistency to show one of the premises cannot be true (i.e., assuming it to be true *leads* to inconsistency). The conflict between the law (premise 8) and the final conclusion of pp4 *does not* demonstrate that the argument author did not know what they were doing...because they may have wanted precisely to demonstrate this conflict. Albert From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Apr 2 19:36:27 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 l32NaQdG022346 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:36:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l32NaNr9084719 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:36:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 26949 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 23:36:23 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 23:36:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 26915 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 23:36:22 -0000 Received: from defer.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.58) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 23:36:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 13194 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 23:36:11 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by defer.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 23:36:11 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4323327 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:36:11 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 25110 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 23:36:11 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 23:36:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 7470 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 23:36:10 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 23:36:10 -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 l32NaA1w022331 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:36:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l32NaAvK022330 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:36:10 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704022336.l32NaAvK022330@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:36:10 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: POSITION PAPER 4 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 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2998/Mon Apr 2 17:34:29 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 2658 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: POSITION PAPER 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For your revision of Position Paper 4, due next week, please...: 1. ...put the following two pieces of information on the TOP LEFT of your paper: Position Paper #4 DATE DUE 2. ...put the follwing two pieces of information on the TOP RIGHT of your paper: YOUR NAME 484 (OR 584), M (OR W) Doing both of these will make it much easier for me to keep track of your papers. Thanks. 3. ...remember that premises and conclusions, both of which are sentences, can only be true or false (or you can agree or disagree with them). They cannot be valid, invalid, sound, or unsound. 4. ...remember that arguments (sequences of sentences consisting of one or more premises and ending with a conclusion) can be: valid (iff it's impossible for all prems to be T while conc is F) invalid (iff it's possible for all prems to be T while conc is F) sound (iff it's valid AND all premises are true), or unsound (iff it's invalid OR some premise is false). They cannot be true or false, good or bad, successful or failures. There is one small exception to 3 & 4: We can say that a conclusion (which is a sentence, not an argument) "follows validly" or "does not follow validly" from its premises. 5. ...remember that just because an argument is invalid does NOT mean that its conclusion is false, and just because an argument is valid does NOT mean that its conclusion is true. 6. ...remember that if you have two arguments, such that the conclusion of one is a premise of the other, it's possible for one argument to be valid and the other invalid; it's also possible for the first argument to be unsound and for the second argument to be sound; the validity and soundness of each of the two arguments is independent of the other; and it's only if you believe that the conclusion of the first argument is false that you can claim that the second argument would be unsound (but it might still be valid!). ! If you are confused about any of these points, please see Albert or me, or send us email, or post a query to the Listserv. ! ======================================================================== If you make ANY errors with respect to ANY of these points on Position Paper 4, I will deduct points! ======================================================================== From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Apr 2 19:53:50 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 l32Nrokm023373 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:53:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l32NrmaJ085788 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:53:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 3456 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 23:53:48 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 23:53:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 3441 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 23:53:48 -0000 Received: from defer.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.58) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 23:53:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 3917 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 23:53:32 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by defer.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 23:53:32 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4323517 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:53:32 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 3170 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 23:53:32 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 23:53:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 397 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2007 23:53:31 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp4.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 2 Apr 2007 23:53:31 -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 l32NrV8M023356 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:53:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l32NrVc8023355 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:53:31 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704022353.l32NrVc8023355@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:53:31 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: HINTS ON POSITION PAPER 4 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 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2998/Mon Apr 2 17:34:29 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1160 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: HINTS ON POSITION PAPER 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. The overall argument consists of 3 "sub"arguments: a) 1,2,3; therefore, 4 b) 5,6; therefore, 7 c) 4,7,9; therefore, 10 2. All of them are valid (i.e., it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false). 3. But 10 conflicts with 8, which is true. 4. Therefore, 10 is false. 5. Therefore, at least one of 4, 7, 9 is false! 6. But if 4 is false, then at least one of 1, 2, 3 is false! 7. And if 7 is false, then at least one of 5, 6 is false! 8. So, which ones are false? And why do you think so? 9. Alternatively, if you are firmly convinced, for good reason, that 1,2,3,5,6 are all true, then you must think that the law (as expressed in 3,6, and especially 8) must be changed. How should it be changed? 10. Note that (at least on my reading of them) Newell 1985-1986 argues that at least one of 1,2,3,5,6 is false (i.e., "the models are broken"), while Koepsell 2000 argues that the law needs to be changed. From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Apr 2 21:11:05 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 l331B5i8028244 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:11:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.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 l331B3YI090518 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:11:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 9728 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 01:11:03 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 01:11:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 9711 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 01:11:03 -0000 Received: from defer.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.58) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 01:11:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 19582 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 01:11:01 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by defer.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 01:11:01 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4324463 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:11:01 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 2975 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 01:08:24 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 01:08:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 1191 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 01:08:23 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 01:08:23 -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 l3318NWI028091 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:08:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l3318Ngq028090 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:08:23 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704030108.l3318Ngq028090@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:08:23 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: POSITION PAPER 4 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=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2999/Mon Apr 2 19:20:03 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 459 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: POSITION PAPER 4 (again) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For your revision of Position Paper 4, due next week, ALSO please...: 7. Use a staple, and put your name on all sheets, if your paper is more than one sheet in length. 8. Do not put your person number on the page. That is as private as your social security number.