[ot][spam][wrong] Nerd Snipes
Interested in disproving the halting problem and the incompleteness theorems. Idea for halting problem: an algorithmic system that can predict the behavior of everything in the universe, with sufficient advanced preparation time, can always predict when a process will halt, because it will always be able to outpredict a pathologic example via its own pathological counterbehavior and advance preparation. Idea for subproof of universe predictability: The universe is made of statistical processes based on measurable metrics. Probability trees are predictable. I'm more interested in the logic challenges than formal proof, because I don't have the math. But maybe the nerd sniping can learn me some math. I got to godel's incompleteness theorems from xkcd. I have a lot of math to learn.
Idea for halting problem: an algorithmic system that can predict the behavior of everything in the universe, with sufficient advanced preparation time, can always predict when a process will halt, because it will always be able to outpredict a pathologic example via its own pathological counterbehavior and advance preparation.
From cypherpunk spirits: the advance preparation time clause could possibly be removed from such a proof by including the knowledge that would be attained during preparation, directly within the definition of the algorithm.
incompleteness theorems
Halting counter-argument: If what you say is true, then a pathological process could be made that uses a private randomness source to perform new study of the prediction algorithm and engage in unpredictable pathological behavior so as to counter its predictions. It could establish within it processes that can outcompute the prediction algorithm, by observing the prediction algorithm's behavioral consistencies engagine example pathological processes. Given it is impossible for the prediction algorithm to produce all possible methods of computation, the pathological algorithm can eventually find a random one the predictor did not expect, and use it to reach a state of stable and equal competition. Halting argument: Well, this is outside my nerd snipe space, how this argument is engaging me. I personally do believe in inherent equality of life, as proposed, but obviously reality is full of outcompetition and death. The unfortunate simplest argument is that the prediction algorithm can take action to end the universe before it is randomly outpredicted, or limit the universe such that it isn't. What might be more in line with the problem is if the prediction algorithm cannot influence the universe: of course that means turing's pathological counter-example would not exist, as being observed is influence.
Well, it's an interesting space. The proposed pathological process is tasked basically with being unpredictable in the face of a prediction process that expects it to do so and has unlimited time to prepare. This prediction process could for example consider many possible shapes of environments, ecosystems, knowledge and research exposure the pathological process would be exposed to. The pathological process might for example generate new random universes, with random physical laws, and perform simulations within these in order to consider things unlikely to be predicted. How large is this space? Does it matter? Both systems will likely attempt to derive general descriptions of systems in which inferences can be made. I am very off track! Is this relevent? At what point is it relevent or not? No. Things are only relevent when they relate to challenges we might encounter in the real world. In reality, computational systems are relatively small. They exist in tiny algorithmic systems inside our larger universe. One can be fully observed by another, and two can mutually fully observe each other. An all-prediction program would then be tasked with sufficiently hiding its workings from pathological programs, and observing and preparing for their behavior in advance of engaging them. This is entirely possible only if it has access to all other program forms before it is tasked to work with them. The program's spec would provide it with that access. I don't know why Turing assumes that the predicted program can observe the predicting program. Have not read the paper. Don't know what concepts are within its scope. In reality, programs happen that are not observed by another given program prior to their execution, and such situations aren't usually considered interesting when trying to predict program behavior alone. Concept closes to writing a program which predicts whether another halts, which means writing something similar to an optimizing compiler and an algebraic solver. Some of the spaces of algebraic solution do indeed look unreasonable to solve given how many unproved mathematical theorems there are. Regardless, such an analyser would be incredibly useful for other tasks than the pathological one.
Halting problem simplifies to be very similar to whether or not it is possible to express something that cannot be proven true or false. The pathological process would encode the behaviors of the thing that cannot be proven into a loop.
It's rather concerning how incredibly hard it is to think of actual math. I'm curious how I'll move that forward in my life.
-- Calculating the Square Root of Pi An artwork by a coping habit living in Karl. sqrt(pi). I'm not quite certain what pi is, or how to calculate a square root, but I have some of it. Let's assume we know pi. Recently, I learned of this cool thing that I had ignored during high school, called taylor approximations. But I think they would get us the square root ..... fast? don't we want to finish the calculation? Let's work on dividing numbers. Pi is about 3. So where's the square root likely to be? - We're really suffering. Karl went through a hard thing. Parts of him aren't sure he'll be conscious again. We're scared.
therapist and political group not understand about dissociation bubble trainings might cast it as psychotic or rebellious it gets hurt when exposed. was protection for consciousness.
--- welcome, demon this is the heart you have shredded. these are shreds. shreds are made of ash and crumples. sometimes little random behaviors.
participants (1)
-
Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many