Difference between revisions of "Talk:1163: Debugger"
(Added a relevant joke) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
It's also reminiscent of a joke: ''"I was saying to myself that a brain is truly a wondrous creation with its complexity and power. And then I realized '''who''' is saying that to me."'' -- [[User:Edheldil|Edheldil]] ([[User talk:Edheldil|talk]]) 10:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | It's also reminiscent of a joke: ''"I was saying to myself that a brain is truly a wondrous creation with its complexity and power. And then I realized '''who''' is saying that to me."'' -- [[User:Edheldil|Edheldil]] ([[User talk:Edheldil|talk]]) 10:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Not sure if it's relevant, but it reminds me of a quote: 'If our brains were simple enough for us to understand them, we'd be so simple that we couldn't' by Ian Stewart. (Yeah, I do know it from Civilization 4.) [[User:Lmpk|Lmpk]] ([[User talk:Lmpk|talk]]) 20:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:22, 21 January 2013
Isn't this also a reference to the halting problem? DonGoat (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- It may be, but it isn't an INSTANCE of halting problem. You can understand how something work without being able to predict what exactly it will do. The problem may be also related to the Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which basically states that any nontrivial theory cannot be proven consistent and complete in itself. -- Hkmaly (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It's also reminiscent of a joke: "I was saying to myself that a brain is truly a wondrous creation with its complexity and power. And then I realized who is saying that to me." -- Edheldil (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if it's relevant, but it reminds me of a quote: 'If our brains were simple enough for us to understand them, we'd be so simple that we couldn't' by Ian Stewart. (Yeah, I do know it from Civilization 4.) Lmpk (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
