Aeium

I disagree with the last sentence.

If you have some terminology you don't like, provide an alternative.

Main is fine.

But like what is the alternative to cargo cult provided here? It's a very concise representation of a pretty complex idea.

"You are valuing the ritual associated with an outcome instead of the outcome."

Is that my alternative?

Main is more concise than master. But how do I boil that down without saying "cargo cult"?

middlemen to what?

The quantum performance thing is real, but that the random circuit sampling problem they are tabling as the benchmark here is for a quantum circuit.

So really what is being claimed is that classical computers can't easily simulate quantum ones. But is that really surprising?

What would be surprising would be that kind of speedup vs classical on some kind of general optimization algorithm. I don't think that is what they are claiming though, even if it does kind of seem like it's being presented that way.

I think there are people that have intentionally swallowed some tapeworm eggs for a similar reason to this.

Did he play as a mage?

How do they know this?

What are you talking about?

What other operation ever conducted do you think even comes close?

Thousands of detonations and a fraction of 1% with any effect off target? What other operation do you think comes even close?

Canned talking point? Try like basic reasoning instead

Three grams of explosives in each device used by a hostile military organization.

I don't think it could possibly be more targeted. Literally just devices issued by Hezbollah themselves to their own members.

Maybe it wasn't perfect. That seems to be the bar you are setting.

But much closer to perfect than I would have imagined possible. And closer to perfect than I think most people would have imagined. Maybe that is aggravating to people ideologically set against literally anything they might do.

But far superior, and less disruptive to innocent people to tactics used elsewere by Israel. Far far more more targeted and less disruptive to innocent people than the tactics used by Hezbollah themselves.

it is certainly still in the dip

I think it would look something like that if you were looking directly east, since the distance and the perspective would bring it to the vanishing point in the center of the image.

So, from that POV, the rings would not be able to go past the center of the image.

This view would still be possible if this is a cropped down section of a larger image that was pointed slightly to the left I think.

There is a disproportionate amount of LEO satellites in polar orbits. Particularly morning time sun-synchronous polar orbits.

If everything in that orbit (the most crowded one) starts kessler syndroming it up, I think all the junk would mostly stay in polar orbits?

Can any orbital dynamics experts confirm? I was kind of just adjacent to that area in a job previously.

You are making this sound absurd, but what if you actually can build some kind of AGI like that.

Then we will never be able to find the Nth beaver number for the corresponding N.

This is pretty clearly what people are asking about when asking if BB(6) is "uncomputable" then.

I understand (now) the point about the specific meaning of the term of art "uncomputable". If you want to speak precisely on the topic, it's not the right question to ask.

But it still seems like the question, "will we ever be able to find out the Nth beaver number", is the more interesting question.

So, we can define ZFC axioms that classify the beavers we can know together with the beavers we cannot know. So what? Then that is just skipping the interesting question. Maybe that just means for this specific problem that is not the best construction to decide to use to classify them?

I would be more interested in a classification that would assign one label to beavers we could possibly hope to calculate, and another for beavers where the calculation is impossible.

I was on this exact same journey, so our taste must be similar. Love his stuff.

Just in case our taste is VERY similar, I have really enjoyed every book I've read so far except the middle book in the Orthogonal series.

The first was great, third was back in form. I would recommend, if you are reading the second one, and start to wonder why you should press through, just skip to the third one.

I'm not really qualified to make any judgements about the overall quality of it, but it's moreso the tone of it that I am talking about. I wonder if he was going through something when he wrote that one or something.

So, one thing that we know from Godel is that there are true statements that cannot be proven.

What if a similar proof is made for a Beaver? That a specific beaver is constructed such that

1: It probably never halts 2: Proving that it never halts is a paradox

Something like that. If assignment of BB number for BB of that size depends on that proof, then the BB value doesn't exist.

And what else would it depend on? How could a smaller number be selected when larger potential numbers cannot be ruled out?

Yes, this is clearly true. Pardon the hasty first reading and deleted comment please.

It doesn't address what I am claiming though.

The busy beaver is not defined entirely by halting vs not-halting.

Looping beavers are excluded as well.

The middle ground I am claiming is that there is a middle ground between non-halting and provably non-halting.

I'm claiming there could be a non-halting Beaver that is impossible to prove, which would mean there is no answer for the BB function.

_the second form surely exists_

Is this true for the BB function though?

What if there is a beaver that never halts or loops, and has behavior sufficiently complex, such that it's impossible to prove it will never halt.

Then for rules of that length, the second form doesn't exist.

Isn't saying BB(6) is computable the same as assuming that it is an integer?

I thought this was not necessarily true.

For example, one beaver might halt after some integer number of steps. This would be the potentially very large integer the author is referring to. Another might go into an infinite loop, and clearly never halt.

My understanding of the where incomputability entered the discussion is the third possibility, that a beaver might have complex behavior that neither ever halts or ever loops.

The author touches on answering this, drawing the distinction that a specific answer might not be provable. But I'm not sure I understand.

How would the answer for a specific integer be computable if it's impossible to determine what the value for the function of is for that integer?

If I had a dime for every time I've seen someone judgmentally compare Israel to fictional protagonists.

"Luke Skywalker would just use the force to rescue the hostages. Have you considered that? I'm improving the world with my wisdom on this issue"

Isn't this just going to make the surface more alkaline by pumping the acid (co2 rich) surface layer deeper down?

Then the surface can in turn absorb more co2, but I think at the end of the day the ocean overall will have more dissolved co2 and it will become more acidic.

Am I misunderstanding something?