Consider the following conundrum that pops out of this discussion:
All algorithms must halt.
is a transcendental number that has no end.
Ergo, there are no algorithms for computing
I'll be the first to admit that we computer folk err on the side of the practical, but gosh sometimes these terms get bent out by the theorists (although who am *I* to be arguing with Kleene?
) to the point where they have no usefulness!
In the above, I have only seen the term "program" used as a possible candidate term for "an algorithm that does not terminate (but may produce lots of output)" but *that* term by every definition I can find refers specifically to something written in a "programming language" and thus does not satisfy the issue posed in the Original Post here of a general description that is not a program!
So, what'cha gonna call it folks? Or for purity's sake, is it just a "not in my backyard" issue?
I'm not saying that lots of smart people haven't decided this is a good thing, but I'm not sure why. Even Minsky's question is at odds with the fact that all his AI work basically produced "an answer" that was an approximation, and never "the answer" which was from a practical standpoint not practically computable.
I took all the computational theory classes, and I know what the issue is here, but I do argue that this one is out at the how-many-angels-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin end of the spectrum...
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless information,
Buffy
