> By the end of this post, you will know:
> • What can and cannot be computed.
I don’t think it delivered on the “can” part. (And I don’t think we really know that well.)
> • What can and cannot be computed.
I don’t think it delivered on the “can” part. (And I don’t think we really know that well.)
What would you suggest I do to deliver on this?
Maybe rather:
• That some truths cannot be computed.
> Something is said to be "computable" if there exists an algorithm that can get from the given input to the expected output. For example, adding together 2 integers is computable.
I could probably have dug into some of the restrictions, like how it has to be a finite number of steps.
At the level you’re describing Turing machines, it’s also not clear that readers would have a precise notion of what an algorithm is. At no point (unless I missed it) do you explain that any algorithm is supposed to be implementable as a Turing machine, or the assumption of what is otherwise known as the Church–Turing thesis.