<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Rich, Joel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:JRich@sibson.com">JRich@sibson.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<br>
<br>
BTW we once had a discussion of a automatic psak computer. Such a<br>
computer of course could not account for such extra-halachic issues<br>
<br>
--<br>
Eli Turkel<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I think I would disagree in theory in 99% of the cases- just need a<br>
bigger computer and better fuzzy logic/AI programmers and poskim who can<br>
detail how they reach a decision. Of course it's hard to detail how you<br>
would react to a black swan.<br>
KT<br>
Joel Rich<br>
</blockquote></div><br>I wouldn't want a computer to spit out a psak.<br>but I would like it to present the relvant factoids related to a p'sak<br><br>For example the Abudarham's point re: 10th of Teves has been rejected by the BY. That fact must be noted. It's not jsut that Rashi and Rambam ot Abuarhma, it's that the BY sets it aside himself!<br>
<br>The various postings omitted this factoid, and are somehow rehabilitating the Abudarham as something more than what apperas to be a patently rejected da'as yachid. A computer wouldn't do that. <br><br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>Kol Tuv - Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br><br>