True, but then this boils down to computational complexity, not our
understanding of computers. For deterministic problems, a computer can
always come up with a deterministic solution provided we are willing to wait.
The fact that we are not willing to wait is a personal problem.
It is also the reason I replaced my IBM XT years ago ;-)
>
>There have been computers turned loose on problems that were thought to
>be non-deterministic, like proving Fermat's theorem. And Viola! after
>the N zillionth step they stopped with a solution. Someone probably has
>one running right no to prove that no even number greater than 4 is not
>the sum of two primes.
>
As I stated previously, our real problem isn't in our understanding of
computers, but in our ability to determine whether or not a problem has a
deterministic solution before trying it on a computer. The length required
to complete a computation is not a problem of the computer design, but of
our unwillingness to wait for the computation to complete.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com