Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Humberto Massa wrote:
>> @ 26/04/2004 17:54 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
>> >Program: Software which is intended for execution on an actually
>> >existing interpreter.
>> >Data: Software which is not ~.
>> You are a real bad boy :-) So, I will give some food for the brain:
>> Mozilla actually gets a PNG, SVG, from the Web and executes the
>> instructions there (put some pixel of this color here, draw a line from
>> point A to point B).
>> "$ cat file.txt" gets a text file and executes the ASCII/UTF/LATIN/etc
>> words there as instructions "send letter A to the terminal", "send
>> letter S to the terminal", "send letter S to the terminal", send letter
>> H", and so on.
> Both examples are wrong. Neither PNG/SVG/... nor text describe a
> turing-complete language for the given interpreter, so it's not
> possible to program arbitrary algorithms with them.
Who said you had to be able to? 'lex' isn't a Turing-complete language
either (it codes significantly less powerful automata). Does that mean
that the input file for 'lex' is not a program?
>> Every data is *interpreted* in some by some piece of the software you
>> run. Even if it's only to display it in some form you can recognize.
>> This e-mail text, p.ex., is being transformed from text (UTF?) to font
>> glyphs, to drawings in the screen in front of me by a combination of
>> Mozilla and Windows 98 software. Every single char in it is
>> *interpreted* so it can be drawn on the screen.
> Not every interpretation is an execution.
Yeah, but now we get into the impossible problem of determining what is and
what isn't. Unless you want to exclude perl scripts too.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.