What there is difficult for you to understand? I can’t make it much simpler than that and it seems to be more or less well formed vernacular.
If you are trying in a backhanded way to make the point “Humans are machines! The set you mention is empty!” then yes, that is rather close to von Neumann’s point.
If you are trying in a backhanded way to make the point “Humans are machines! The set you mention is empty!” then yes, that is rather close to von Neumann’s point.
Indeed, I can’t think of any plausible meanings for machine, do and tell which would make that quotation non-tautological but true.
Sorry. What I meant is that computer programs can’t speak English, or any other natural language. When you get a program that can speak English it will most likely be trivial to make a program that does the translation CronoDAS was talking about.
Speak English
EDIT: That is an example of what you are looking for.
What there is difficult for you to understand? I can’t make it much simpler than that and it seems to be more or less well formed vernacular.
If you are trying in a backhanded way to make the point “Humans are machines! The set you mention is empty!” then yes, that is rather close to von Neumann’s point.
Indeed, I can’t think of any plausible meanings for machine, do and tell which would make that quotation non-tautological but true.
And if everyone else was able to see that I guess von Neumann would never have needed to make the statement.!
Sorry. What I meant is that computer programs can’t speak English, or any other natural language. When you get a program that can speak English it will most likely be trivial to make a program that does the translation CronoDAS was talking about.
Ahh, I see. I may have been less confused if you replied to the quote directly.
Natural language processing is certainly one task that has not yet been eliminated as a counter-example.