4 ms·
I got that point (in your comment and in the paper), but that is just a lousy argument, the _harming_ problem is fed the _halting_ problem, and since the second
by cambalache 6y ago
I got that point (in your comment and in the paper), but that is just a lousy argument, the _harming_ problem is fed the _halting_ problem, and since the second is undecidable the first it also is. So in essence the argument boils down to my original point.
How to prove your pizza is poisonous.
Let's put some cyanide in your pizza. Now let's assume by contradiction your pizza is not poisonous, but alas, in contains cyanide which is poisonous then so it is the pizza.
- thewakalix 6y agoIt's more like "it's impossible to prove that every pizza isn't poisonous, because here's a proof that a certain pizza contains cyanide." Some particular pizza might very well be non-poisonous, but this is a statement about all pizzas.
- cambalache 6y agoNo, you are confusing the metaphor. In this case the pizza is the harming algo, the cyanide the halting problem and the poisonous quality the fact they are undecidable or not. You are not reasoning about a set of pizzas , just one pizza in particular.