Thanks. It is a miracle something survived on those floppies, let alone computer deaths... The directory they are under is called "Y2K Backup\MYFILES\Ancient Pascal Disk 3"...
I was asked how to install Pascal now, but I have no idea. I suspect the code relies on DOS and Turbo Pascal too much to run now without jumping through some hoops.
Pascal wasn't case sensitive, so it was mostly a matter of style.
On Modula-2 and Oberon languages and their descendants keywords are uppercase and the languages are case sensitive.
But you could anyway write in lowercase and let the editor format the code for you, no need for banging the shift key all the time. :)
Actually I kind of like having keywords as uppercase, it means on a poor man's teletype or modern black-and-white printer without formatting, it is easier to spot the keywords versus the rest of code.
For those not in the know, the first book ever bought from Amazon was Douglas Hofstadter's "Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies : Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought"
On a related note, if you are interested in learning more about Godel and the Incompleteness Theorem and its significance, I recommend the book Incompleteness by Rebecca Goldstein.
I did that too; I remember the squares paper in the book. I see it in front of my eyes still. Good memories at some Portugal vacation with my parents in the 80s.
There's only one of those "friends" (FlooP): Hofstadter explained that there is no more powerful "GlooP" language, because FlooP turns out to be as powerful as any computing formalism that can be implemented on a computer.
Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies is a wonderful book. I wouldn't call the systems they build upon (such as lMetacat [1] and Tabletop [2]) "machine learning"...
I'd also like to see FARGonauts / Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition style software implementations around... I have run with success this python implementation of Copycat:
I implemented it in Python (while reading from that LISP version, a Java version, and Melanie Mitchell's "Analogy-Making as Perception"): https://github.com/jalanb/co.py.cat
Its maybe a matter of taste but I find his other work to be rather pretentious, although geb is entertaining and somewhat useful (I half liked le ton beau de marot).
I really think k there's something useful.in fluid concepts that maybe can help with low data learning. I think geoffrey Hinton hints at it in his lecture about trying to do pca on learned neural states to find manyfold correlations which in high dimensional states are stronger to be nonrandom.
I'm not sure why you have it in quotes. But FWIW, most of my questions were cleared up by these two wonderful books: Peter Smith's An Introduction to Gödel's Theorems and Torkel Franzén's Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse
Why would you have problems with Gödel's incompleteness theorems (which are, I assume, the ones you are referring to), and why do you put 'theorem' in quotes as if they aren't actually theorems?
A sort of uneasiness about their symbolic basis to start off with, nothing subsequent - I can follow it. Lack of understanding. That 'it smells' feeling. I'm not suggest they are wrong, just asking. Its okay to ask?
Well perhaps you have the same problem as Whitehead and Russell? In GEB Hofstadter IIRC is quite harsh on them for their intellectual timidity in not being able to face the paradox inherent in Godel's Theorem...Paradoxes can "feel" uncomfortable.
That sufficiently capable logical systems are necessarily incomplete can be uncomfortable, especially if the beauty of completeness has been your lifelong goal.
But on the other hand, it's very cool that this provides an opening for consciousness and free will to arise.
If you want something that will feel more intuitive then quantum computing since democritus has a proof related to Turing machines that always seemed far more intuitive to me. http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec3.html
https://github.com/ehud/MIU