3 ms·

> A real number, in general, requires an infinite number of bits to describe Which is why any charitable, non-sarcastic reading of my comment would take it to

> A real number, in general, requires an infinite number of bits to describe Which is why any charitable, non-sarcastic reading of my comment would take it to be referring to a subset of reals which are compatible with TMs and which make the claim true, instead of pointing out every possible way to misinterpret my comment deliberately. Be better.

tromp 4y ago
You could have said it's a function CR x CR -> 2 to refer to the Computable Reals. Instead you explicitly made it about the reals R, making it hard to be charitable.
- gnull 4y ago
  All the ways of encoding Reals that you mention in your comment are limited to Rationals. It seems like you just didn't know that one can encode Reals too, which puffoflogic assumed readers to know. Yes, they could have made their comment more accessible and mentioned the encoding (but I think then the problem may have sounded less "natural", since you'd have Turing machines mentioned). But you also could have noticed you're building a strawman argument, and instead just asked how does one encode Reals. Heuristics: if other person's argument sounds too absurd, there's a chance you're misunderstanding something.
rocqua 4y ago
If you claim a construction is obvious and dispells confusion, that construction should not have any readings that are obviously wrong. Sure, charitable readings of informed readers will find it obvious. But less informed readers, or skeptical readers, will see the wrong interpretation. For a skeptical reader to then think "since they state its obvious, perhaps they refer to the general uncomputability of the reals", is not surprising. Regarding the actual construction, once its well formulated, it becomes a lot less 'natural'. Since the definition is already taking about computable (or representable) reals, it is much less surprising that the result is a non-computable function. The beauty of the example is that the definition of the function never refers to any ideas from computational theory. Hence the article serves as a counter example to the theory "You never get uncomputable functions in fields outside of computational theory".

tromp 4y ago

You could have said it's a function CR x CR -> 2 to refer to the Computable Reals. Instead you explicitly made it about the reals R, making it hard to be charitable.

gnull 4y ago
All the ways of encoding Reals that you mention in your comment are limited to Rationals. It seems like you just didn't know that one can encode Reals too, which puffoflogic assumed readers to know. Yes, they could have made their comment more accessible and mentioned the encoding (but I think then the problem may have sounded less "natural", since you'd have Turing machines mentioned). But you also could have noticed you're building a strawman argument, and instead just asked how does one encode Reals. Heuristics: if other person's argument sounds too absurd, there's a chance you're misunderstanding something.

rocqua 4y ago

If you claim a construction is obvious and dispells confusion, that construction should not have any readings that are obviously wrong. Sure, charitable readings of informed readers will find it obvious. But less informed readers, or skeptical readers, will see the wrong interpretation. For a skeptical reader to then think "since they state its obvious, perhaps they refer to the general uncomputability of the reals", is not surprising. Regarding the actual construction, once its well formulated, it becomes a lot less 'natural'. Since the definition is already taking about computable (or representable) reals, it is much less surprising that the result is a non-computable function. The beauty of the example is that the definition of the function never refers to any ideas from computational theory. Hence the article serves as a counter example to the theory "You never get uncomputable functions in fields outside of computational theory".