3 ms·
Pretty sure there's just a different notion of "Computable" going on. Author probably is choosing their (very strict!) definition of computable, whereas most fo
by jvanderbot 2y ago
Pretty sure there's just a different notion of "Computable" going on. Author probably is choosing their (very strict!) definition of computable, whereas most folks would consider "Computable" to be "A computer could currently do it".
Regardless of whether yes, the given example
program is computable (it is), the general folks of the CS world probably understand it to be uncomputable because no computer could run that properly due to the impossible complexity in `if god`.
It does bother me a little bit when an academic writes an entire article about their specific definition of a word, then lambastes the world for asking dumb questions using a different definition of the same word, and refusing to elaborate.
- voxl 2y agoYour example function just always never prints so that makes things easier.
- joenot443 2y agoWhy's that?
- jvanderbot 2y agoGP is joking about the certainty of there being / not being a god
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoComputable has a standard definition in CS. It’s not like the author made it up or something.
- jvanderbot 2y agoYeah, if you're talking to CS folks who have encountered that definition as part of a theory class, then sure, good chances they could be scolded for asking the wrong questions using that word. But that's a small bit of CS undergrads, and a very small part of the internet / wider world, who have a more colloquial definition of it. Not sure it's entirely worth scolding them, is all I'm saying.
- School-Cotton 2y agoThe post is on a theoretical CS blog, talking about a question in a theoretical CS textbook. Why shouldn’t we expect it to use theoretical CS jargon?