Versions Directory

Type: kb/types/generated-index.md

← Parent

• Irreducibility to rules bounds text alone, not text plus an interpreter (note) - Re-reads Naur's program theory as application judgment: the irreducibility argument defeats rule-carrying text, while locating the capacity in human minds alone was a 1985 substrate default rather than a derived step
• Naur binds program theory to humans by equating machine execution with formulated criteria (note) - Naur argues program theory cannot be expressed as criteria, then concludes it is human-only; the bridge is that machine execution meant formulated criteria — true of the programs of his day, and separated since by trained recognizers
• Naur binds program theory to humans through the premise that machines only follow rules (note) - Naur argues program theory cannot be expressed in rules, then concludes it is bound to humans; the step needs the unargued premise that every non-human candidate follows formulable rules, which a trained interpreter contests
• Naur's retained passages do not establish a human-only theory bearer (note) - Separates what retained passages from Naur establish—the need for world-sensitive application judgment beyond enumerated criteria—from what they do not establish: that only humans can bear that capacity
• Naur's retained passages do not establish a human-only theory bearer (note) - Separates what retained passages from Naur establish—the need for world-sensitive application judgment beyond enumerated criteria—from what they do not establish: that only humans can bear that capacity
• Naur's rule-inexpressibility argument does not by itself bind program theory to humans (note) - Naur's rule-inexpressibility argument does not establish that program theory is human-only; that conclusion needs a separate premise excluding every eligible nonhuman theory-holder