HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015953.jpg
1.61 MB
Extraction Summary
1
People
0
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Book excerpt / manuscript page (house oversight document production)
File Size:
1.61 MB
Summary
This document appears to be page 263 of a book or manuscript regarding software engineering theory, specifically discussing the 'Turing limit,' the philosophical necessity of software bugs, and the importance of written specifications and prototyping. While stamped with a House Oversight footer (suggesting it is part of a larger government investigation production), the content itself is technical and philosophical in nature, containing no names, dates, or specific events related to Jeffrey Epstein or his associates on this specific page.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown Author | Author |
The narrator writing about software engineering philosophy.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"This is forbidden as it breaks the Turing limit, so we can’t mechanically solve a general logic problem above the logic limit."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015953.jpg
Quote #1
"Luckily something prevents this and keeps our Universe intact – BUGS! Bugs stop us breaking Turing’s limit."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015953.jpg
Quote #2
"Written specifications are valuable because they force you to lay out the whole problem."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015953.jpg
Quote #3
"Programming is an art: a creative endeavor."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015953.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,572 characters)
Software 263
it. Find another, create a work-around, and so on. By doing this, we are
effectively mechanically generalizing our solution. This is forbidden as
it breaks the Turing limit, so we can’t mechanically solve a general logic
problem above the logic limit. We need instead to use intuitive or creative
thought. In our panic we did not stop, take a step back and engage our
brain. Instead, we attempted, unsuccessfully, to blindly hack our way
through the problem.
effectively mechanically generalizing our solution. This is forbidden as
it breaks the Turing limit, so we can’t mechanically solve a general logic
problem above the logic limit. We need instead to use intuitive or creative
thought. In our panic we did not stop, take a step back and engage our
brain. Instead, we attempted, unsuccessfully, to blindly hack our way
through the problem.
If we eventually succeeded in perfecting the code this way, we
would have broken a fundamental law of the Universe. Something nasty
would have to happen to prevent it, such as rupturing the space-time
continuum or an event equally horrible! Luckily something prevents this
and keeps our Universe intact – BUGS! Bugs stop us breaking Turing’s
limit.
would have broken a fundamental law of the Universe. Something nasty
would have to happen to prevent it, such as rupturing the space-time
continuum or an event equally horrible! Luckily something prevents this
and keeps our Universe intact – BUGS! Bugs stop us breaking Turing’s
limit.
The next time you curse a bug, remember if they didn’t exist you’d be
in danger of causing a logical paradox. There is no problem in redefining
the domain and then creatively producing an all-encompassing design,
but, you can’t patch and hack your way there. This theory of bugs leads to
an explanation for some modern programming rules of thumb.
in danger of causing a logical paradox. There is no problem in redefining
the domain and then creatively producing an all-encompassing design,
but, you can’t patch and hack your way there. This theory of bugs leads to
an explanation for some modern programming rules of thumb.
Written specifications are valuable because they force you to lay out
the whole problem. You don’t need to be detailed regarding the depth,
but should be expansive about the breadth, covering all the logical
complexity. This might result in many details as a by-product, but a
specification needs to delineate the edges of the problem space and not
simply focus on a few key points.
the whole problem. You don’t need to be detailed regarding the depth,
but should be expansive about the breadth, covering all the logical
complexity. This might result in many details as a by-product, but a
specification needs to delineate the edges of the problem space and not
simply focus on a few key points.
Writing the tests for the software in advance is helpful as it is likely
to tell you early whether your design encompasses the whole problem
space.
to tell you early whether your design encompasses the whole problem
space.
Also, building a prototype, throwing it away, and then building the
real thing can help greatly. It may be the only way to examine the edges
of the problem space in detail. Armed with a full understanding, you
can then imagine solutions to the complete problem in a single creative
sitting. Whatever techniques you use to improve the quality of your
software, remember you are engaged in a creative process that is not,
itself, open to automation.
real thing can help greatly. It may be the only way to examine the edges
of the problem space in detail. Armed with a full understanding, you
can then imagine solutions to the complete problem in a single creative
sitting. Whatever techniques you use to improve the quality of your
software, remember you are engaged in a creative process that is not,
itself, open to automation.
The Art of Programming
Programming is an art: a creative endeavor. It is also, of course, highly
scientific. When you work with a good programmer – and I have been
fortunate to work with some of the best in the world – they all follow
a similar process. First they talk with you at length about your needs
Programming is an art: a creative endeavor. It is also, of course, highly
scientific. When you work with a good programmer – and I have been
fortunate to work with some of the best in the world – they all follow
a similar process. First they talk with you at length about your needs
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015953
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document