ukj

42 ms·

391.
by ukj 7y ago
I am standing in the camp of my own actual problem-domain. The "obscurity" and "artificiality" of which is largely irrelevant to me having to tackle it. If you are arguing a view-point outside of your own problem domai
392.
by ukj 7y ago
In the spirit of dialectic (thesis/antithesis/synthesis) it is precisely context which determines the "truth", "relevance" and "correctness" of any claim - to assume it a-priori is a framing tactic. T
393.
by ukj 7y ago
Similar ideas come out of the NuPRL project ( http://nuprl.org/Intro/intro.html ) > Starting with the slogan "proofs-as-programs," we now talk about "theories-as-systems." But if you rewind histo
394.
by ukj 7y ago
To understand why LISP matters (in theory anyway) is to understand the concept of reification [1]. What you choose to reify (make explicit) in a particular language is a design decision. It's directly related to point 0 in Wadler'
395.
by ukj 7y ago
>which is a very convenient accusation (if it was in fact not true) The key here is that you don't know if the accusation was true or false, but you arguing as if you do. Which, in the language of Information Theory, is called a bia
396.
by ukj 7y ago
As an ex-Amazonian (having been surrounded by thousands of exceptional people whose second nature is risk management) I can tell you that coming to work with a cold was frowned upon. It was not "corporate policy" - it was culture.
397.
by ukj 7y ago
You can’t keep the reference Turing machine fixed in light of the linear speed up theorem. Hence the argument for compression. A Turing machine with a better language is faster. It compresses time.
398.
by ukj 7y ago
What is "special" is that the system has a peculiar property: f(x) != f(x). If we claim to be subscribed to denotational (Mathematical) semantics then the above contradicts the identity axiom. And it's not any deep and world-
399.
by ukj 7y ago
I am pleased that it pleased you, but allow me to correct the misconception arising due to the parallax between your view of me and my view of me. Quantum Entanglement is computation, which makes me a monist and a materialist/physicali
400.
by ukj 7y ago
You have some deeply flawed (or entirely absent) philosophical upbringing. There are no "foundations" to anything - all definitions are arbitrary. To assert that a premise is fallacious mandates that you have some prior notion of
401.
by ukj 7y ago
Trivially. For any given system 'safety' is an operational concept, not a denotational one. You can't formalize the notion of 'safety' let alone prove (in the Mathematical sense) that your code has it without examin
402.
by ukj 7y ago
So as a brief summary: laziness leaks time. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on what you want/need. It may be a bad thing if you are doing cryptography because time leaks allow side-channel attacks ( https:/&
403.
by ukj 7y ago
You understand that "Number of bitstrings of length 10" is a function of the cardinality of your alphabet, right? A binary alphabet has 2^10 such strings. A decimal alphabet has 10^10 such strings. So before you can make the asser
404.
by ukj 7y ago
Your monad(WorldState, Value) example assumes shared global state. So not a networked system then? That's not a train-smash for your argument if you can show me a Mathematical model for a global mutex. When the discussion turns to con
405.
by ukj 7y ago
I am implying that Mathematical semantics are broken/incomplete. Mathematics uses denotational semantics. It implies pass by-value and pass-by-reference are equivalent. They are in theory, they aren't in practice. That is why Hask
406.
by ukj 7y ago
Assume that it is a black box to you, even though it is a white box to me. Every time you call read() on it - you get a different result. It has side-effects. This violates the “purity” of Mathematics.
407.
by ukj 7y ago
Yeah! So you know that read:T call that you have implemented in Scala? You know that it could produce a different result on consecutive calls, right? Because the notion of a mutex/lock doesn’t exist in Math. Mathematics doesn’t allow t
408.
by ukj 7y ago
How does “time run out” in practice other than you putting an upper bound on your computation? Obviously, the code will not halt until it compresses the stream successfully.
409.
by ukj 7y ago
I can express a mutating getter in any modern programming language much like you just expressed “foobarish bambozles” in English. Q.E.D
410.
by ukj 7y ago
So you were unable to compress the stream given the allocated time. Perhaps you could've compressed it had you kept running for just a second longer?
411.
by ukj 7y ago
A bunch of functional programmers continue to insist that the Turing Machine has no ticker tape which stores state? Yeah. I know ;)
412.
by ukj 7y ago
>Any algorithm can be formalised in e.g. a Turing machine, or any other equivalent universal model of computation Quoting http://math.andrej.com/2006/03/27/sometimes-all-functions-ar... >>The lesson
413.
by ukj 7y ago
That is probably because you think expression end evaluation are isomorphic. They aren't. Not all functions are referentially transparent. All Mathematical functions are assumed to be.
414.
by ukj 7y ago
You can never determine this with 100% certainty - that is what we have falsification for. The non-compressibility of a sequence is a falsifiable claim. All it takes is a single demonstration of successful compression.
415.
by ukj 7y ago
I am to really glad to hear commentary like this coming from physicists. (read: glad to see others siding with my biases). Ceteris paribus there is one significant distinction between Mathematics and Computer Science: state. The Mathematica
416.
by ukj 7y ago
Sure it can. Compression. Kolmogorov complexity. I don't need to 'store' the infinite set of natural numbers - that would require infinite space (memory). But I can describe the infinite set in a single line of Python. Nat =
417.
by ukj 7y ago
Not really. You are still in the paradigm of computation. Detecting anything is signal processing. And if I am wrong about this - all the better! It is exactly the right kind of wrongness we need to progress science.
418.
by ukj 7y ago
>You are a biological system. That is the language of systems theory. You are welcome to use the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle as a semantic. >A massive, noisy and dynamical system of interactions we can never hope to model in fidel
419.
by ukj 7y ago
Note how you insist on a definition for “mind”, but if we are going to keep raising the bar on missing definitions let’s just go for the sacred cow. What is a definition anyway? Could you give me a definition for “definition”? At some point
420.
by ukj 7y ago
Either the structure of the universe is computational or the structure of the instrument we use to understand the universe with is computational: our minds. It is difficult to distinguish the two cases in practice. https://en.wik

More ›