Alan turing notebook]

From: Peter Moore

Date: Nov 4 2002

To: mroberts@petermoore.com

I’ve used’scratch’ and ‘hint’ for quite some time, and found their usefulness in solving most problems, so it’s not a surprise they were not used much in this paper. That said, it is surprising to learn that they are available and quite useful as tools.

You can find me at mroberts@petermoore.com. I’m a professor of computer science at Purdue University.

You can find me on the Internet at web.purdue.edu/~mroberts.마이다스카지노

From: Robert Wright

Date: Apr 10 2002

To: mroberts@petermoore.com

I have seen many questions, and I must confess I haven’t tried either of these solutions so far and haven’t thought it through.

My guess is that you can solve many of those problems, as long as your solution does not use any of those methods. You should not use’scratch’ as a substitute for ‘hint’. There are also some things that you may not know that use’scratch’ too. I have used it (under a test of오바마 카지노‘scratch’ as a general-purpose tool) to solve a few problems where the ‘hint’ tool is not useful. Perhaps we can get a better idea of what the alternatives look like.

http://cs.stanford.edu/~srdee/mroberts.htm

From: J. Michael Steele

Date: Aug 3 2002

To: mroberts@petermoore.com

I don’t understand your analysis, but it strikes me that your solution has a weakness that the problem you are solving is not yet proven. For example, my problem in the paper is “Can a finite automaton know what a word means?” For your solution tXO 카지노o that problem, I find that your “gives more to the problem than it produces” is weak.

From: mroberts@petermoore.com

Date: Nov 3 2002

To: mrobert