Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mcnc!ecsvax!duke!bein!gazit From: gazit@bein.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) Newsgroups: comp.society.women Subject: Re: Women and Logic Message-ID: <12990@duke.cs.duke.edu> Date: 6 Dec 88 02:37:50 GMT References: <6041@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> Sender: skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Reply-To: gazit@bein.UUCP (Hillel Gazit) Organization: Duke University CS Dept.; Durham, NC Lines: 29 Approved: skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Moderator -- Trish Roberts) Comments-to: comp-women-request@cs.purdue.edu Submissions-to: comp-women@cs.purdue.edu In article <6041@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> osu-cis!att!cbnews!cblpn!jd@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >of the lore and literature that surrounds me takes >the opposite view. I do not know whether my observations >are narrow and invalid, or whether the socialization of >the words "logical=superior, intuitive=inferior" may have >caused us to apply these words in a non-scientific manner. >Since this forum addresses the particular subset of >humanity who are involved in computers, and computers >are uniquely logical in nature, I would be interested >in reading the views of the other computer-folks on this topic. There are several problem that we (computer scientists) know an easy and fast way to solve them using randomize algorithms (which means that there is a probability that the answer is *not* correct ), but we don't know any good (fast) deterministic (always true) algorithm to solve them. The phenomena occurs especially in parallel processing. If we assume that the brain is a parallel processor, and intuition is some kind of "randomness" (I can't justify the second assumption, it is an intuitive one 1/2 :-)), then intuition should give *in most cases* better and faster result. >Jo Duston Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu