Minds and Machines

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 219–237

Recipes, Algorithms, and Programs

  • Carol E. Cleland

DOI: 10.1023/A:1011251504223

Cite this article as:
Cleland, C.E. Minds and Machines (2001) 11: 219. doi:10.1023/A:1011251504223


In the technical literature of computer science, the concept of an effective procedure is closely associated with the notion of an instruction that precisely specifies an action. Turing machine instructions are held up as providing paragons of instructions that "precisely describe" or "well define" the actions they prescribe. Numerical algorithms and computer programs are judged effective just insofar as they are thought to be translatable into Turing machine programs. Nontechnical procedures (e.g., recipes, methods) are summarily dismissed as ineffective on the grounds that their instructions lack the requisite precision. But despite the pivotal role played by the notion of a precisely specified instruction in classifying procedures as effective and ineffective, little attention has been paid to the manner in which instructions "precisely specify" the actions they prescribe. It is the purpose of this paper to remedy this defect. The results are startling. The reputed exemplary precision of Turing machine instructions turns out to be a myth. Indeed, the most precise specifications of action are provided not by the procedures of theoretical computer science and mathematics (algorithms) but rather by the nontechnical procedures of everyday life. I close with a discussion of some of the rumifications of these conclusions for understanding and designing concrete computers and their programming languages.

action algorithm computer program effective procedure precisely specified instruction quotidian procedure symbol Turing machine 

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carol E. Cleland
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy & Institute of Cognitive ScienceUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations