mdxn

8 ms·

31.
by mdxn 13y ago
I didn't know there were that many infinite loops in Magic (I don't happen to play it). Could you link something describing the hilarious confetti combo? I must have not been clear and concise. I apologize for this. I was discussi
32.
by mdxn 13y ago
Your definitions of Turing-Complete and Turing Equivalent, as phrased, are incorrect or perhaps mistaken to some extent. I don't want to Arbitrarily scalable memory is just one necessary component for Turing-equivalence to a Turing Mac
33.
by mdxn 13y ago
I think it would be possible given new cards, but I imagine it would be incredibly difficult (not to mention game breaking). It would basically require cards that would handle arbitrary branching (algorithmically determined). A set of cards
34.
by mdxn 13y ago
I have, but thank you for bringing up something incredibly obvious and well known. Honestly, perhaps I shouldn't have feigned confusion in my reply. I just felt that it was courteous to have them reframe their question again before I c
35.
by mdxn 13y ago
I believe you have misunderstood what I have said. My issue with Magic was not with the logic specifically. It is with the fact that it requires the player to initiate state transition by specifically selecting actions. It would be permissi
36.
by mdxn 13y ago
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what your point is or how it relates to my comment.
37.
by mdxn 13y ago
When we talk about models of computation, we typically look at ones where some sort of resource is unbounded. In the case with generalized Minecraft, both time and block space are unbounded. The hope is to translate that block space resourc
38.
by mdxn 13y ago
I would advise that everyone take more care when assessing the Turing Completeness various models of computation. Many analyses that I have seen do a check for logical completeness, but forget to rigorously check that you have scalable and
39.
by mdxn 14y ago
I know a couple of CS security students at my university (myself included) that would LOVE to look into those if what you say is true.
40.
by mdxn 14y ago
There are dozens of Greasemonkey scripts on userscripts.org dating back to 2005 that do exactly this and more (On Chrome, you can use the Tampermonkey extension; On Firefox, it's just called Greasemonkey). No to belittle your work or anythi
41.
by mdxn 14y ago
There are things mentioned in this article that are completely wrong. There are also comments here that show a complete misunderstanding of the P vs. NP question in general, but I won't address these. The constraint problem here with only p
42.
by mdxn 14y ago
This witch hunt is incredibly disturbing. Not only do these petitions blatantly exclude some fundamental principles of government and society, but they distracts greatly from where our focus should lie.
43.
by mdxn 14y ago
I can't edit to clarify now, but that statement is meant to be an assumption rather than of fact for use as a toy example for a line of reasoning. If I could edit again, I'd make it read as "For instance, let P <= BPP <= NP".
44.
by mdxn 14y ago
If you don't mind me asking, how and when did you find his blog post?
45.
by mdxn 14y ago
No, he is claiming that l-CLIQUE requires exponential circuit size (this is the reason that most of the proof talks about circuit complexity and not time bounded Turing Machines). This is not necessarily the same thing as exponential time.
46.
by mdxn 14y ago
We do have to worry about it. If it is the case that NP <= P/poly, then PH collapses to sigma P 2. Unless there have been recent results that show otherwise, P/poly might even contain NEXPTIME. Regardless, the connection to P in this pa
47.
by mdxn 14y ago
1. BPP <= P/poly was proven by L. Adleman. 2. I never said that P = BPP was hard to prove. I only brought up BPP because its derandomization, despite being limited to subexponential nondeterministic time, would still imply a lower bound
48.
by mdxn 14y ago
I was clearly referring to exponential circuit sizes (note the sentence before it), not exponential time. By the way, you can edit your original reply to contain more information rather than just making a bunch of new ones.
49.
by mdxn 14y ago
The depth vs. size characterization was a legitimate mistake of mine (got distracted by the authors use of depth). I am aware of the distinction. Though in writing my post, I did actually have size in mind. I'll edit to reflect this. As for
50.
by mdxn 14y ago
Note: For the moment, I will assume that the NP != NC and above results are correct enough to consider the validity of the latter portion of the paper. As far as I can tell (from my initial reading), the author (and many many commenters her