Sniffnoy

18 ms·

211.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
You should actually read the article (which says that it depends on the state) rather than just stating what you might expect to be true!
212.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
Feel like it's worth linking to the Stop Killing Games campaign ( https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ ) here! See also other recent thread on this story ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41665593 ) whe
213.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
Hm, wonder if the Stop Killing Games campaign ( https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ ) will be able to make use of this, like they're trying to make use of consumer protection law in France...
214.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
Bacterial genes migrating from the mitochondria to the nucleus -- or at least, that's the theory I read in "The Vital Question" by Nick Lane.
215.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
These were added precisely because they were in use in older systems, so I don't see what you're complaining about here. The emoji expansion is annoying, but this isn't an instance of that; this is specifically adding charac
216.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
Huh! I was unaware (of both of those), thanks.
217.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
Python 3 actually uses UTF-32, so it's all constant-time. A tradeoff few make, certainly!
218.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
My understanding: The Higgs field, uniquely, has a nonzero vacuum expectation value -- so, when it's in its ground state, it's "switched on", it has an effect. In the early universe, it was in a higher energy state; for
219.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
I've seen it a bunch, FWIW.
220.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
Yes, the original is here: https://puzzles.mit.edu/2013/coinheist.com/rubik/a_regular_c...
221.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
> I'm also having a hard time understanding Woit's position given that he's a math department guy. Sure, string theory doesn't look exciting from an experimentalist's perspective. But from a mathematical perspect
222.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
> To account for rotations, we can divide the final value by 4 since every arrangement can be rotated and is therefore valid. Note that this is only approximately correct, since some layouts will have nontrivial symmetries. (Edit: Actua
223.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
> The most influential philosopher of recent times is Eliezer Yudkowsky ... The adoption of his thinking contributed to the formation of major AI labs such as OpenAI and later Anthropic. Minor point, but I don't think one can reason
224.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
I mean, what they mean by "non-Riemannina" specifically is that it's a metric that can't be realized as the metric on a Riemannian manifold. But while that much is clear, getting beyond that is not. Which is why I&#x27
225.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
> stronger than the triangle inequality That's not a violation -- "stronger than" is the opposite of a violation!
226.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
Are you sure it's claiming that? Looking quickly I didn't see anything to indicate that, I didn't see anything claiming triangle inequality violations. (But this is why I wish it had been phrased explicitly in these terms, in
227.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
While this phrases things in terms of Riemannian geometry, it seems to me like this is really about more fundamental metric properties, but I find its terminology a bit unclear. Would it be correct to summarize this as saying is that color
228.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
It's clickbait in what I believe is the original sense -- the title could easily state what specific thing it is talking about (sulfur), but instead it uses a vaguer term ("a surprise") so that you have to click on it to lear
229.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
First off, it's not Collatz, it's a Collatz-like problem. But yes, I'd be very surprised if Collatz were actually undecideable, even if it's well beyond the reach of current mathematics. I agree with your statements abou
230.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
Yeah, that would definitely surprise me.
231.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
Well, that post is about 8000, not 745; but yes, in general, you are not going to use a Gödel sentence when trying to drive down the record. This isn't disagreeing with what I was saying, though; I said incompleteness requires there is
232.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
Tangential, but fun fact about Zeckendorf: In addition to Zeckendorf representation, there's also dual Zeckendorf (sometimes also called lazy Fibonacci), where instead of requiring no two consecutive ones, you require no two consecut
233.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
I don't believe so. But even if there were, unfortunately, these things basically work the other way around. If you can encode a problem in n states, and you know BB(n), then, as you say, you could use that to solve the problem. Trou
234.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
I can't find that one under any of the years. Is that from the Bulwer-Lytton contest rather than the Lyttle Lytton contest? It sounds a bit long to be an entry in the latter.
235.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
When you say "provably", do you mean that in the mathematical sense or in a practical sense? For the practical sense, other commenters have already replied. For the mathematical sense, I would say it would be pretty surprising to
236.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
> I think that's a bit too harsh. An entire complicated proof concocted solely looking at a computer screen in Coq? Nobody is suggesting this, and in this case, it was indeed "ported" to Coq from existing sketches. The dis
237.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
The variant of BB discussed in the article is counting steps, not 1s. (I guess "shifts" is equivalent to steps, although that seems like a more roundabout way of specifying it.) Also, I don't think anyone counts strings of
238.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
Yes, I am very aware that many times they don't, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't ! Fortunately, in many cases, even when the detail is omitted from the headline theorem, they did in fact do the work and it is in fact
239.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
I know what the notation means. I'm wondering what the actual function is. Using little o is a way of abstracting that information away.
240.
by Sniffnoy 2y ago
Sorry, where's that stated? I'm pretty doubtful of that claim because if that's what they meant they would say that -- they'd say it was O(m^(1+ɛ)), that would be well-understood notation. But what they wrote is that i

More ›