Talk:Hofstadter's law/Archives/2019
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Hofstadter's law. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"one more piece of evidence"
Clarification is requested on how the slow progress of chess computers can be "one more piece of evidence" for Hofstadter's law, when the law was first introduced in GEB to discuss the slow progress of chess computers. This is exactly how it was introduced in GEB [1], with no explanation. Presumably Hofstadter had been using his law previously to writing it down in his book. Fourthark (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's kind of weird. There's no explanation in that chapter of GEB (that I can see) of what he means by "one more". I'm removing the "clarification needed" tag from the article, because Hofstadter offers no clarification himself. Adpete (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Why does this page not reference Intuitionistic Relevant Logic by Neil Tennant, Ph.D.? Or Hogue’s corollary? Namely, a time process parameterized by an outside observer can be reparameterized by an inside observer? For example, a quantum entangled computer running Shoar’s algorithm can outcompute relativity laws of information flow, theoretically? Or insider stock trading is illegal because of the same time fallacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.185.231 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ GEB pg 152