6 ms·
In traditional HN style, I will now thumb my nose at Vertasium's excellent video due to him skipping over how godel came up with the proof. He built up the who
by sillysaurusx 5y ago
In traditional HN style, I will now thumb my nose at Vertasium's excellent video due to him skipping over how godel came up with the proof.
He built up the whole damn video for that one moment, when he says "And godel went through all this trouble to come up with this card..." and flips over the card. But how godel did it is at least as cool as the proof itself.
I'm mostly being tongue in cheek with the Veritasium nose-thumbing. But if you saw it and want to understand it more deeply (and in my opinion more satisfyingly), I recommend "What Godel Discovered": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25115746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25115746
It explains Godel's proof using Clojure. Quite accurately, too.
The thread is also hilarious. Shoutout to the MIT professor who took offense at someone linking to his wikipedia page: "Wikipedia is contentious and often potentially libelous." ... and then you check his wikipedia page, and it's a super positive article about all of his discoveries and life's work.
- gpderetta 5y agofor those that haven't clicked through, the MIT professor is none other than Carl Hewitt of actor model fame. I should post the wiki link so that we can have the whole discussion again :)
- Workaccount2 5y ago>Carl Hewitt of actor model fame I'll admit that threw me for a loop for a second.
- gpderetta 5y ago:) Sorry, I guess it ended up being some sort of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence
- espadrine 5y ago> Shoutout to the MIT professor who took offense at someone linking to his wikipedia page […] and it's a super positive article about all of his discoveries and life's work. Carl Hewitt is no doubt a famed and accomplished professor, but why does nobody point out that he is claiming that Gödel’s proof is incorrect[0]? I already heard of his conviction that “The Church/Turing Thesis is that a nondeterministic Turing Machine can perform any computation. […] [T]he Thesis is false because there are digital computations that cannot be performed by a nondeterministic Turing machine.”[1]. (Which, to be fair, is a strongly related argument to the one that Gödel was wrong.) I don’t personally know whether he is right, and his digression about millions of people risking death as a result does not inspire confidence, but in my understanding, neither statement is widely accepted. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25160970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25160970 [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3603021 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3603021
- myWindoonn 5y agoI don't want to be a professional Hewitt debunker, but his stance has been ripped to shreds; at this point, he is wrong about Direct Logic refuting Gödel and Turing, and his ActorScript can't be implemented on real machines.
- joelbluminator 5y agoMaybe he should try writing it in Elixir instead of ActorScript?
- weatherlight 5y agoHewitt argues that erlang/elixir/beam isn't the actor model because of how Erlang processes receive/process messages more here: https://www.erlang-solutions.com/blog/lets-talkconcurrency-panel-discussion-with-sir-tony-hoare-joe-armstrong-and-carl-hewitt/ https://www.erlang-solutions.com/blog/lets-talkconcurrency-p... and here: https://codesync.global/media/almost-actors-comparing-pony-language-to-beam-languages-erlang-elixir/ https://codesync.global/media/almost-actors-comparing-pony-l...
- ProfHewitt 5y agoOf course, Erlang can be accurately modeled using the theory of Actors. See discussion in Related Work section of the following article: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3603021 https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3603021
- weatherlight 5y agoProf. Hewitt himself!
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ProfHewitt 5y agomyWindoonn: Do you have anything of actual substance to contribute to the the discussion?
- ProfHewitt 5y agoA fundamental problem with Wikipedia is that it doesn't have proper accountability for material that it publishes. Furthermore, Wikipedia is heavily censored by an anonymous group. See [von Plato 2018] on how Gödel deceived von Neumann in developing one of his fundamental proofs in [Gödel 1931].
- saurik 5y agoThat wikipedia article is edit-locked and if you look at its history it is, in fact, hilarious.
- ProfHewitt 5y agoWhy do you find Wikipedia censorship hilarious?
- saurik 5y agoBecause it is? It isn't quite "ridiculous", as it is somewhat more amusing than that. It certainly isn't "funny", FWIW, as I have absolutely no positive connotations with it... "hilarious" feels like the correct term.
- ProfHewitt 5y agoHilarious means "extremely amusing", which is your position on censorship?
- koheripbal 5y agoI agree... while the video is great - it does have a pretty big hole there.