Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Philosophize not God, Philosophize the Door Knob (Was: Secret Sauce
 of Dana Scott and Raymond Smullyan)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:06:59 +0100
Message-ID: <vmh55i$5anv$1@solani.org>
References: <vmerq7$41rn$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:06:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="174847"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/128.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.20
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WSF7hom0lk7RA/JAMtGURdd9BNM=
In-Reply-To: <vmerq7$41rn$1@solani.org>
X-User-ID: eJwNwokRwDAIA7CVCsSmGYd3/xHak2AUlh+CB/ubTBdqQYNLbSmFevu8Xrn3BPrptqBF2d5dN50cPqJ2BR9ikRW/
Bytes: 3789
Lines: 69

Hi,

What if Computer Vision = Computer Linguistic.
That is, if the areas are based on the same
problems and the same solutions.

An example I “see” a doorknob.  In order to
open the door I have to be able to visually
recognize a variety of different designs and
classify them according to function.

Is this part on the door intended to open the door?

We can do that as humans.  It's the same problem
with words.  There are different words with the
same "function" in a context. In principle it's

very similar, I could imagine that Computer Vision
has simply re-fertilized Computer Linguistic.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> How it started:
> 
> Computers Still Can't Do Beautiful Mathematics - by Gina Kolata
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Mathematicians often say that their craft is as much an art
> as a science.  But as more and more researchers are using
> computers to prove their theorems, some worry that the magic
> is in danger of fading away.
> 
> How its going:
> 
> Computers Do Produce Beautiful Mathematics - Dr. Larry Wos
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> In addition to exhibiting logical reasoning of the type
> found in mathematics, reasoning programs produce results
> that are startling and elegant.  Dr. J. Lukasiewicz was well
> recognized for his contributions to areas of logic,
> 
> and yet the program OTTER recently found a proof far shorter and
> more elegant than that produced by this eminent researcher,
> and the program used the same notation and style of
> reasoning.  Mathematicians and logicians find elegance in
> shorter proofs.
> 
> In August of 1990, Dr. Dana Scott of Carnegie Mellon
> University attended a workshop at Argonne National
> Laboratory.  There he learned of OTTER and some of its uses
> and successes.  Upon returning to his university, Dr.
> Scott's curiosity prompted him to suggest (via electronic
> mail) 68 theorems for consideration by the computer.
> 
> His curiosity was almost immediately satisfied, for the sought-
> after 68 proofs were returned with the comment that all were
> obtained in a single computer run with the program--and in
> less than 16 CPU minutes on a Sun 4 workstation.  Dr. Scott
> now uses his own copy of OTTER on his Macintosh.
> 
> Dr. R. Smullyan of the University of Indiana showed
> great pleasure and surprise at learning of some of the
> successes achieved by an automated reasoning program.  As
> evidence of his interest, he posed a number of questions,
> receiving in turn the answers to all but one of them--a
> question that is still open.
> https://theory.stanford.edu/~uribe/mail/qed.messages/91.html