雙語暢銷書《艾倫圖靈傳》第8章:水銀延時線(116)
This, to Dorothy Sayers, made a reductio ad absurdum of determinism.
Dorothy Sayers did not know in 1941 that even the little Enigma machine was sufficiently unpredictable to keep hundreds of people in employment.
但他卻沒有看到，在1941年，小小的謎機就有那麼多的變數，需要成百上千的人圍着它團團轉。He was certainly fascinated by the fact that a machine like the Delilah key generator could be perfectly deterministic at one level, while producing something apparently 'random' at another. It gave him a model for reconciling determination and free-will.
但圖靈當然也知道，黛麗拉密鑰生成器雖然會產生一些看似隨機的東西，但它在某種層面上也是確定的。這其實是個很好的模型，可以讓他在決定論和自由意識之間做出協調，
But this did not go very far. It was the capacity of machines to learn that he saw as the crux of the argument. A learning machine would part company altogether with the 'mere machine' of common parlance.
但他沒有順着這裏走下去，他認爲機器的學習能力纔是這個問題的關鍵。The objection from Godel's theorem he answered in the same way as he had in 1947, by separating 'intelligence' from 'infallibility'.
圖靈還用1947年的方式，將"智能"與"不出錯"區別開，回答了基於哥德爾定理的反駁。This time he gave an example of how the intelligent approach could be wrong, and the accurate one stupid:
他給出了一個例子，來說明智能反而有可能導致錯誤：It is related that the infant Gauss was asked at school to do the addition 15 + 18 + 21 + ...+ 54 (or something of the kind) and that he immediately wrote down 483, presumably having calculated it as (15 + 54) (54—12)/2.3 can ine a situation where the children were given a number of additions to do, of which the first 5 were all arithmetic progressions, but the 6th was say 23 + 34 + 45 ...+ 100 +112+ 122 ...+ 199.
類似於說高斯小時候做的15+18+21+...+54（諸如這樣的加法），他立即寫出了483，用（15+54）（54-12）/（23）（圖）這樣的方法……我們想象一種情形，讓一個孩子做加法，前面是等差的，但中間卻突然變了，比如說23+34+45...+100+112+122…+199。Gauss might have given the answer to this as if it were an arithmetic progression, not having noticed that the 9th term was 112 instead of 111.
高斯也許會把這當成等差數列，並運用他的技巧，但他卻沒有注意到，第9個數是112而不是111。This would be a definite mistake, which the less intelligent children would not have been likely to make.
很顯然這是一個錯誤，但那些不怎麼聰明的孩子，卻反而不會犯這樣的錯誤。
