To most mathematicians, valuing intuition is not a new idea. While one of the most distinguishing qualities of mathematics is its rigor, to focus on this quality misses the big picture. Henri Poincare, arguably the greatest 20th century mathematician, said it best: "It is by logic we prove, it is by intuition we invent." This theme is echoed in many of his writings about creativity in mathematics.
Turing's argument is beautiful and elegant, undoubtedly one of the gems of modern mathematics. However, the reason you don't see the intuition behind Turing's argument taught is that there is too much material to cover in a general theoretical computer science course. You need to be able to master the known material, to stand on the shoulders of giants, to make new advances in the discipline. This may not necessarily be the best way to encourage creativity and insight in computer science, but the hope is that interested students will delve deeper (like the author) and discover insights for themselves.
Lastly, at least among many mathematicians, Turing may be up there with Euclid among the demigods of mathematics, but there are those that lie still higher, people like Gauss and Euler who have yet to be matched in terms of mathematical output and impact.
I don't think the greatness of Euclid (or more precisely, he and the many unnamed predecessors of whose work he was the compiler) was that he came up with especially user-friendly axioms. What other axioms would someone who was less skillful at coming up with user-friendly axioms have produced instead?
Perhaps somebody would have discovered hyperbolic or other non-Euclidean geometries before Lobachevsky? Through the lens of modern mathematics, non-Euclidean geometry seems like such a simple extension/modification of Euclidean geometry, yet it was only explored and developed in detail in the early 19th century.
Well it took more than a thousand years for the belief of a spherical Earth to be accepted. It's hard to imagine a new type of geometry when you believe the Earth is flat.
Actually in ancient times they knew the world was spherical. It's debatable how many people really thought it was flat even in the darkest of the dark ages.
Turns out that you can actually measure the Earth's circumference pretty easily with some basic geometry. You can see the distance at which a ship starts to disappear on the horizon and are able to get a relation of distance to angle drop.
It's odd how they teach that the round Earth theory started with Copernicus.
Let me try another stab at figuring out why non Euclidean geometry took so long to arise: I'm under the impression that a large portion of Greek geometry was based on construction using a compass and protractor. Seeing that it is difficult to use those instruments on spherical or hyperbolic planes they never went beyond Euclidian geometry.
On top of that, you don't even an ocean to measure the Earth's circumference. Eratosthenes of Cyrene (born in the 3rd century BC) calculated the circumference of the earth fairly accurately using the angle of elevation of the Sun measured from two different cities. Note that implies that a round earth was common knowledge to the Greeks even at this date.
Turing's argument is beautiful and elegant, undoubtedly one of the gems of modern mathematics. However, the reason you don't see the intuition behind Turing's argument taught is that there is too much material to cover in a general theoretical computer science course. You need to be able to master the known material, to stand on the shoulders of giants, to make new advances in the discipline. This may not necessarily be the best way to encourage creativity and insight in computer science, but the hope is that interested students will delve deeper (like the author) and discover insights for themselves.
Lastly, at least among many mathematicians, Turing may be up there with Euclid among the demigods of mathematics, but there are those that lie still higher, people like Gauss and Euler who have yet to be matched in terms of mathematical output and impact.