From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,93a8020cc980d113
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed2.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!edtnps90.POSTED!023a3d7c!not-for-mail
Sender: blaak@METROID
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What is wrong with Ada?
References: <1176150704.130880.248080@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
 <zyBSh.44138$oV.14776@attbi_s21> <461B52A6.20102@obry.net>
 <awirc4gv13.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <461BA892.3090002@obry.net>
 <yeabxgnsrj.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <82dgve.spf.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <1176226291.589741.257600@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <4eaive.6p9.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <sa4ps6apjb7.fsf@margay.local>
 <wccwt0ho2fc.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1rbtw92apxpl1.1ednvo8v6oiq8$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <aslkgxyvpj.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <el1sx203zohn$.1ehb1vbs3p0vd.dlg@40tude.net>
 <mn3b33w7tf.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <13tcswu59l28h.zxb26cabf9a0.dlg@40tude.net>
 <thr6ql7hkp.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <15k5b4j6za8ag.tpkuccinvzbd.dlg@40tude.net>
 <bmy7kkyt6r.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1jrh6o5yca0w.dqiviyjs01am.dlg@40tude.net>
From: Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
Message-ID: <uk5w2kepu.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
Organization: The Transcend
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:39:28 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.66.252.228
X-Trace: edtnps90 1177360768 208.66.252.228 (Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:39:28 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:39:28 MDT
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15239
Date: 2007-04-23T20:39:28+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:50:52 +0200, Markus E Leypold wrote:
> 
> > You don't feel the need to justify the use of "trivial" for any
> > actually existing program?
> 
> Any actually existing program can be expressed with single natural number. 
> 
> Moreover, all programs which were ever written, as well as all ones which
> *actually* will ever be, all together, again could be characterized by
> another natural number.

While technically true, that characterization is not really useful in terms of
actually using such numbers, and does not really say anything at all about how
trivial such numbers/programs are.

In fact, the art of finding such numbers that do useful work for humans is
hard. People who know how to do that are called programmers.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net                    The Rhythm has my soul.