hc

someone failed logic

.

_

cool story, bro

fuck you

the funny thing is, this doesn't sound more or less patronizing than anything else that comes out of richard dawkins

is this fiction?

sorry guys. this site is not worth taking seriously anymore

lol

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FractionalPart.html

and how many studies did he throw away, when they didnt get the statistical significance he was looking for? now lets average all of them together

i dont know how to answer a single one of these questions.

the last paragraph is the first one you should read in order to decide whether this editorial is worth reading. it is

"The right choice is to not worry about the state of Java's open or proprietary nature, despite some of the discussion occurring in the news today. It is not relevant to your business needs or the long term health of your enterprise software ecosystem."

sounds awful.

upvoted for making me laugh

the reason there isn't a guaranteed compressor is that a legitimate compressor has to be injective, and there isn't an injective function from, say, {0,1}^[n] to {0,1}^[m] where m<n. in contrast, there are many guaranteed "decompressors," if by a decompressor you mean an invertible function that expands the length of a string.

you seem to contradict yourself a bit, first you agree that an algorithm could take "lolz that suckz" and produce "one of" the original thoughts that got transcribed as it, then you say there "simply isn't any sort of mapping" from "fuzzy thoughts" (sentences produced by transcribing thoughts?) to coherent ones. but obviously there are many such mappings, it's just that they aren't guaranteed to produce the same thought the author of the "fuzzy thought" had when he wrote down what he was thinking.

now, what is the actual cause for fear? is it the idea that we might someday be able to communicate without taking too much effort (what you say is impossible), or that people with nothing going on between their ears will be able to produce computer-mediated output that is indistinguishable from coherent thought? i think the latter is more cause for concern/more interesting but i dont think anything youve said really addresses it. tbh i also dont think your brief discussion of information theory does much in the way of arguing against the former either. (your argument could be adapted to show that morse code is impossible, because messages are shorter in morse code than they would be in a straightforward ternary ascii encoding. but actually, it's just that the messages we typically wish to send are generally shorter.)

maybe i misunderstood your original comment. can you give an example of the sort of task you argue an algorithm is incapable of completing?

uh, what about the information existing in the probability distribution of the english language...

haha. is there someone out there who believes you get an education in these subjects by reading those papers that won best paper awards?

lolwut? who youre describing is just a really brilliant person, not an "awesome coder"

someday your computer will be intelligent enough to handle the ambiguities of natural language as well as any human can, and then programming will be as easy as telling a good human programmer what needs to get programmed.

what a pathetic little child, who lacks the courage to apologize for his little temper tantrum. so to sum up, the issue is that kurzweil, an outsider, has dared to make a prediction related to biology with myers in earshot despite providing "no explanation for how we'll be 'reverse engineering' the human brain"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affine_space

chill bro

youre so full of it -- you say this at the same time you have been karma whoring by submitting comments from liptons blog posts on P vs NP to this website, so which one is it, is the problem interesting and newsworthy or not?

Do you dispute the core of my argument, or are you principally interested in this particular semantic diversion? If the latter, do you feel that it actually helps answer the original poster's question? If the former, then what more do you feel that you have to gain by continuing along this line of argumentation, since I've already stated my agreement above?

it sounds like you are irritated that you are being contradicted. i think the solution in this case is that you stop saying things that are flagrantly wrong. i am interested in "this particular semantic diversion". you have been taking a rather confident, definite tone in your various assertions and someone could easily get confused into believing there is legitimate content in your mathematical errors

by the "core of [your] argument" i assume you mean the idea that problems may be solvable in polynomial time but not necessarily quickly solvable in practice, therefore it is a simplification to call the elements of P "easy." that is of course indisputable, but i think the heuristic argument that P problems are easy is more forgivable than the mathematical error of saying O(cn) != O(n) because, like, y'know, asymptotics and stuff

no, a proof that P!=NP would most likely have no immediate consequences for engineering ("practical") applications to anyone, the people most interested in resolution of P vs NP are complexity theorists and other theoretical computer scientists

if you claim that O(cn) and O(n) are different classes then changing the meaning is exactly what you are doing. i think what you are missing is that in mathematics, the meaning of a concept is principally derived from its formal mathematical definition (in this case the one jacobolus supplied you with above, from which it is a trivial exercise to prove f(n)=O(n) iff f(n)=O(cn)), not other things

you cant just go and change the meaning of big-O when you want it to mean something else, it has a meaning already

i'm willing to let your remarks on carmack's "ego" slide, but only because you're such a paragon of humility yourself

I can tell you did a great job reading the article before you commented on it