3 ms·
We are not close to determining the answer to Busy Beaver(5,5). Not every problem is decidable.
by diziet 4y ago
We are not close to determining the answer to Busy Beaver(5,5). Not every problem is decidable.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y agoFamously so. But what does undecidability have to do with language modelling? There's an obvious misunderstanding I could make of your comment but I hate it when people do that to me, so can you please clarify? Also: is your username an allusion to Diziet Sma, from the Iain M. Banks stories?
- diziet 4y agoI referenced a class of problems easily defined via mathematical tools and notation that are seemingly not possible to solve in our universe as an adjacent example for difficult problems that border on our definition of understanding. A problem doesn't have to be undecidable to be realistically unsolvable. For example, I don't think that we can compute TREE(3). Or Graham's number, which is quite a bit smaller. TREE(3) is computable and defined. However, we can't fit it into our universe even if converted every atom into computronium. So do we understand TREE(3)? Surely yes, though at the same time no? How about Rayo's number? As such, I am merely making a statement that at certain scales, to our brains, quantity has a quality of its own. Yes, it is. I've used it for about 15 years now.
- diziet 4y agoI also took a bit of time to look up a more well formulated statement on this -- specifically, Rice's theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem