4 ms·
My eyes glazed over midway through the article. I'd like them to not try explaining the problem but just out and say what the problem is, then try to explain t
by mjevans 3y ago
My eyes glazed over midway through the article. I'd like them to not try explaining the problem but just out and say what the problem is, then try to explain the details so that I can pick at the pieces I don't get well enough.
I THINK the issue is probably something along the line of:
Every new type of thing adds a new dimension / fold / layer, and operations that transfer between layers can occur in any cycle. This leads to an exponentially complex area of valid states in a high-dimensional setting, likely with upper and lower bounds as the shape exists across dimensions. This sounds possibly intractable to define the more potential actions / actors are involved. Thus it is very difficult to reach or process an equation that defines said shape and thus validates if a co-ordinate within the system space exists on or within the surface of the valid states of the system.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI often have this issue with Quanta articles too, for some reason. And agree that a change in article organization might solve it.
- Jeff_Brown 3y agoRight. I'd classify this article under `wow/` and not `aha/`.
- hwayne 3y agoIf you're up for the challenge, the original paper proving ACK-completeness is here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.13866.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.13866.pdf