4 ms·
Scott Aaronson's blog post on large numbers is also a very interesting read: http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html http://www.scottaaronson.com
by marai2 10y ago
Scott Aaronson's blog post on large numbers is also a very interesting read:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html
- d_theorist 10y agoVery enjoyable. However, I think I found a mistake: "For example, ‘5 tetrated to the 3’ means 5 raised to its own power 3 times, or 5^5^5" (I am paraphrasing slightly here because the essay uses an image to show 5^5^5 in normal notation (http://www.scottaaronson.com/cgi-bin/mimetex.cgi?5^{5^5}) http://www.scottaaronson.com/cgi-bin/mimetex.cgi?5^{5^5})) However, shouldn't this be 5^5^5^5, if we're raising 5 to its own power three times?
- aardvark179 10y agoNope, see the description of titration on on wikipedia.
- yathern 10y agoNot quite - think of it this way: 5 x 3 = 5 + 5 + 5 5 ^ 3 = 5 x 5 x 5 5 t 3 = 5 ^ 5 ^ 5 Where t is tetration. Each one counts 3 fives.
- d_theorist 10y agoMakes sense. Thanks.
- jobigoud 10y agoHa, trip down memory lane: > And in Go even an amateur human can still rout the world’s top-ranked computer programs
- pron 10y agoI think that the context matters. While his actual statement is now false, he was really talking about a "solution" to Go, i.e. an algorithm that can compete with any opponent (and back then, Go programs couldn't "even" beat humans). Google's algorithm is (probably) nowhere near a "solution" to Go, but an algorithm that can beat currently-living human opponents. I.e. it is quite likely that a rather simple algorithm would still beat Google's program, only that people's minds don't (or can't) employ that algorithm when they play.