Talk:Full employment theorem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|||||
| Mathematics grading: | Stub Class | Importance unassessed. | Field unassessed. | ||
Google reports 45 hits for this phrase, including at Wikipedia. The article seems to bear scant relation to the information given in the articles Google lists. Lots of typos etc.--duncan 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's used in Wikipedia in other places with this meaning. Perhaps the page needs to go onto Wikitionary?
Watson Ladd 02:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] nonsense
This stuff is bogus. Just because the set of size-optimizing compilers does not have a most-efficient member, doesn't mean that _humans_ must always write better size-optimizing compilers. Computers can do this much better, once we get some decent AI. Thus I have to call "bullshit!". --MarSch 17:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually reading less non-carefully I see that the article states this already. --MarSch 17:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Anyway there can never be such a thing as a full employment theorem as defined by this article. I'll try prodding. --MarSch 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this article from proposed deletion as, regardless of the question of what a full employment theorem would guarantee in the presence of AI, the term full employment theorem is in fact used in the sense given in this article. (Also, as the proposer acknowledges, the article already treats the question of whether a full employment theorem would guarantee full employment in the presence of AI.) The proposer's claim that there are no full employment theorems which satisfy the definition of the article is not correct. Spacepotato 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
