RE: What's your vote for the Grand Challenge?
> I vote that the whole thing is a colossal crock.Dan:
I didn't like the fact that they don't reference previous
art, like other on-going similar projects dating back
to 30 years. But I liked the interest in making
this a "Grand Challenge", like the Genome project.
> I found this statement both enlightening and amusing:The quote as I understood it was only related to
> "'In 20 years time perhaps all computer systems
> will be built on a theory that is understood.
> We are trying to establish these theories.' "
one of the projects:
2. Science for Global Ubiquitous Computing
> But "theory" implies a mathematical solution.I disagree. Theories are explanations sometimes
backed up with empirical data. They can be mathematical
> Is there a single new "theory" that mathematics hasI would say yes, for example Grenander's General Pattern Theory.
> added in the past 40 years for the benefit of
> understanding computing?
Its applicability extends _all_ domains from visual
pattern recognition, language, medical, software ...
you name it.
But there are many others, of course.
> It seems to me that if progress toward understandingWell, I agree with this. But I think including
> computer systems will be made in the next twenty years
> that progress will begin when a community of users
> gets their fossilized mathematical reasoning about
> "theories" out of the way.
biomimetic or even biological theories (that are
not necessarily mathematical), is a good start.
> The computer is a social science problem. SocialI don't know if the "computer" is a social science
> science must deal with decision control.
problem, but I would agree that Software Development
is mostly a social problem.
> What mathematical theorem will withstand the needLocalized Nash Equilibriums constrained by common laws?
> for a proof that tests for how you or I will decide
> to behave tomorrow? Or, for that matter, to test
> for what laws you or I might decide to enforce on
> other people's behavior?
You can probably call this an imposed "moral imperative" :-)