You offering a definition of what you think computing is, and hold it up as the only valid one against a mountain of counterevidence. There is nothing to discuss, really. Have a good day.
-
-
Replying to @oliverbeige @AlexisToumi and
Typical dogmatist who doesn't even have the courage to debate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @oliverbeige and
Debate? That's scholasticism, not mathematics
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @_julesh_ @oliverbeige and
Mathematics is neither physics nor computation. Plus, where did you think modern mathematics come from?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @_julesh_ and
why don't you anglophones just use "numerical" instead of "digital" or at least specify one with the other? digital is a very effective term, but it's highly technical and poorly scientific, once left the electronic network model...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Good point. Sorry
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @_julesh_ and
I did not mean to say you're using it wrong... imo the term is highly embedded with English language, and that's its strength, but I think that makes the word very difficult to use in systematic reflective discourses (i.e. philosophy).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KirkoMal @NegarestaniReza and
However, your question is valid and philosophically charged, but it seems, in the tweet's answers, the ambiguity of the term disturbed the discussion.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I agree.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @_julesh_ and
it's an honour1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
In all honesty you made a point which accounts for a lot of these misunderstood conflicts.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.