Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.edu,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!uhog.mit.edu!news!minsky
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: Expert Systems, AI and Philosophy
Message-ID: <1995Dec9.030013.25049@media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951205002441.14631B-100000@amor.rz.hu-berlin.de> <zcacsst.818159367@cs.ucl.ac.uk> <Pine.SOL.3.91.951207114602.4310C-100000-100000@amor.rz.hu-berlin.de>
Distribution: inet
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 03:00:13 GMT
Lines: 11
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:35232 comp.ai.edu:3018 comp.ai.philosophy:35643

On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Simone Stumpf wrote:

>> Quick interjection: Some problems are not Turing-machine computable
>> (such as the Post Correspondence Problem) but can be solved by Humans.

Good to hear.  There's a proof in my old book "Computation" that Post
Correspondence problems are reducible to Turing Machine problems and
vice versa.  So I'd like to hear what step of that proof is wrong!
(The proof shows how to make an algorithm for each direction of the
equivalence--so there's no philosophy in the path of the proof.)

