Talk:Douglas Lenat

message: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puffery, second meaning. 31.49.9.196 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed 129.22.1.212 (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Puffery

message: I removed: "..., devised a closed mathematical formula for prime numbers, "; as far as I know, if by this is meant a closed formula for calculating the Nth prime, this would be a huge bonus to those wanting to test primality, and would revolutionize our current algorithms for cryptography. Chas zzz brown 00:41 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)
----
Well in fact he did it when he was young, for testing primality only; the formula (which uses "ceiling" and "floor" operators to determine relative primality) is correct, but it's mostly useless for serious mathematical purposes, since the formula effectively merely duplicates the definition of prime number.  Nonetheless, it was a valid result.  Like a dog's walking on its hind legs, it's not that it's done well (or usefully), but rather that it can be done at all. I'd reinstate the fact in some form. 24.27.19.186
----
Repeating an insult (the final part of the passage), should not have a place in an encyclopedia article. It is a fact that the hacker's dictionary has this definition. It is a simple insult to state that the unit is too large for practical use.  I'm too close to this to feel comfortable removing the insult (I work with Doug) but I'd suggest that someone does.
It is perhaps for this reason that "bogosity" is measured in microlenats according to the Jargon File (also known as the Hacker's dictionary). (The lenat is considered too large a unit for practical use.)
:I don't think that the explanation that the lenat is considered too large for practical use adds to the insult - the insult is in the use of the microlenat. I therefore don't think that this should be removed. However, I agree that it may not be clear to what extent this is tongue-in-cheek, so I've edited the passage to specify more clearly the locus of usage of the microlenat. What do  you think?Bill 04:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: One paragraph about criticism and an insult - but not a word about what the criticism actually consists of, nor any references.  I'll wait a bit, then if nobody has cleaned up I'll delete it next time I remember to have a look. HFuruseth 18:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling it's something to do with Neats vs. scruffies, but I can see why you want a specific complaint; a specific complaint, however, will not have given rise to the micro-Lenat, which the paragraph seems a useful construct for introducing.  Having a unit of measure named after you is pretty cool, and it seems to be a pretty fundamental unit too. Josh Parris 01:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specify or delete criticism+insult 

message: According to http://web.mit.edu/manoli/evolution/www/main.html the citation might be to "The Role of Heuristics in Learning by Discovery: Three Case Studies" http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-12405-5_9  However I don't have access to full text and have not verified. DouglasReay (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  published a critique of conventional random-mutation Darwinism[citation needed] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Douglas Lenat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006002537/http://www.cyc.com:80/cyc/technology/halslegacy.html to http://www.cyc.com/cyc/technology/halslegacy.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please could somebody with access to the original confirm that "...to bounce acoustic waves in the 40 mHz range..." is accurate. Millihertz looks bogus, authors should understand abbreviations before using them. MarkMLl (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thesis research