Re: The n-knights problem

A.L. <alewando@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 05:17:20 +0000 (UTC), russell kym horsell
<kym@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
russell kym horsell <kym@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...
Behaving cleverly is not, to my way of thinking, terribly clever itself.
If you're looking for some skeaky method that will miraculously find
the answers to problems your usual sneaky methods take a lot of time over
(aka "hard problems") you've just fallen for an Arrow Theorem trap, with
runtime as the utility function.
What Arrow Theorem has in common with problem discussed in this
thread?..

They don't give Nobels out for problems that are not of fundamental
relevance. :)

Anytime you here a sentence with the word "better" or "worse" in it,
you know someone is using some kind of utility function. The next
question you should ask is -- can utility functions be constructed,
and -- if so -- under what conditions?

As for arithmetic and deductive logic, it turns out there are severe limits.
Of course, everyone ignores this. Most people don't
even acknowlege such things. And anyone that proves such a negtaive result
is usually pilloried because it undermines most of economics, social sciemce,
the humanities, psychology, and even the techniques used in the "hard sciences".

Ah well. If they still insist in textbooks that wings work by making
a low pressure area on the top and a low pressure area on the bottom (*)
(claimed to be "due" to some law Bernoulli), you can't really expect much
from dem puny humans.


===
(*) As I asked of the primary school teacher that first intro'd me to
this bogisity -- don't planes work upside down? -- you can easily determine
the whole explanation is wrong. Just stick to Newton F = p dot and
you can explain kites, paper airplanes and "real" airlanes, too. :)
.