Quote:
Originally Posted by ahi
Keep, reading, I guess. (Note that "not machine-solved yet" != "machine-solvable".)
- Ahi
Ps.: Or why don't I help you out...
|
You are missing the point (in fact, several points). At the most pedantic, not machine-solvable (as opposed to not yet machine-solved) is a very specific assertion, and needs some concrete logical proof of non-computability.
Furthermore, the problem itself is sufficiently ill-defined that the assertion is meaningless. As has been pointed out to you several times, different people have different opinions of the level of typography required for the problem to be classed as "solved".
I assume you'd be happy to concede that there is no single perfect typographical layout that would be universally recognised, and that even "experts" would disagree about which was superior out of a selection of hand-made layouts? Given that, if the criterion for success is thge perfect layout, then you could trivially say that the problem is not machine-solvable, but it's also unsolvable period.
The only meaningful (it seems to me) yardstick for "solved" is when the typography is sufficiently good that the reader is completely happy with it. Different people will have different thresholds for this, and many people's can be met with an automated solution. Furthermore, and this is key, just because you claim expertise in this field doesn't make your opinion of what is acceptable to any given reader any more valid than their own.
Different people want different things.
/JB