Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52540495$0$29984$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
References: <mailman.571.1380663065.18130.python-list@python.org> <87had0axxy.fsf@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <CAMjeLr9KPf=Z4pJoQtU8LXiT686dABg-fpNoWYb9reEPRSsYjA@mail.gmail.com> <524C80B6.3010204@unistra.fr> <mailman.651.1380747919.18130.python-list@python.org> <87li292wnt.fsf@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <mailman.732.1380925974.18130.python-list@python.org> <878uy52ea0.fsf@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <5252F610.9040403@rece.vub.ac.be> <mailman.821.1381188514.18130.python-list@python.org> <525348d7$0$29984$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <CAMjeLr_ZdDURyE4Z8rj=TKzNntZZqXY3stKJG3-Ck+qC_4GeGA@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.822.1381191857.18130.python-list@python.org> <48454d8d-19be-49e4-a63e-9718067e6417@googlegroups.com> <mailman.826.1381209439.18130.python-list@python.org> <5253b935$0$29976$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.852.1381236385.18130.python-list@python.org> <52540495$0$29984$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:36:58 +1100
Subject: Re: Formal-ity and the Church-Turing thesis
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
To: python-list@python.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.875.1381268227.18130.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 36
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:56445

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:16:01 +0530, Ravi Sahni wrote:
>
>>> So in that sense, computers are Turing Machines. Anything a physical
>>> computing device can compute, a Turing Machine could too. The converse
>>> is not true though: a Turing Machine with infinite tape can compute
>>> things where a real physical device would run out of memory, although
>>> it might take longer than anyone is willing to wait.
>>
>> Thanks Sir the detailed explanation. You are offering me many thoughts
>> inside few words so I will need some time to meditate upon the same.
>>
>> Presently Sir, I wish to ask single question: What you mean "wave our
>> hands"??
>
> It is an idiom very common in Australia. (It may not be well known in the
> rest of the English-speaking world.) It means to figuratively flap one's
> hands around in the air while skipping over technical details or
> complications. For example, we often talk about "hand-wavy estimates" for
> how long a job will take: "my hand-wavy estimate is it will take two
> days" is little better than a guess.

A derivative of the term has gone mainstream, too:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HandWave

The term is commonly used when moving to a higher level of abstraction
- we all know a computer doesn't have a soul, can't "feel", and is
ultimately just executing code and crunching numbers, but we handwave
that (eg) the computer "thought" that this program was a risk, and
that's why it quarantined it. When you're trying to explain to some
user that he can't email .EXE files around, it's easier to take the
slightly-inaccurate but simple explanation, hence the handwaves.

ChrisA