this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
1226 points (95.5% liked)

Science Memes

11278 readers
3981 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Turing Incompleteness is a pathway to many powers the Computer Scientists would consider incalculable.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Is it possible to learn this power?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

No, but it's extremely possible to copy someone else's work on it from stack overflow!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

Not from an algorithm.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

In fact, there's infinite problems that cannot be solved by Turing machnes!

(There are countably many Turing-computable problems and uncountably many non-Turing-computable problems)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Infinite seems like it's low-balling it, then. 0% of problems can be solved by Turing machines (same way 0% of real numbers are integers)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Infinite seems like it's low-balling it

Infinite by definition cannot be "low-balling".

0% of problems can be solved by Turing machines (same way 0% of real numbers are integers)

This is incorrect. Any computable problem can be solved by a Turing machine. You can look at the Church-Turing thesis if you want to learn more.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Infinite by definition cannot be “low-balling”.

I was being cheeky! It could've been that the set of non-Turing-computible problems had measure zero but still infinite cardinality. However there's the much stronger result that the set of Turing-computible problems actually has measure zero (for which I used 0% and the integer:reals thing as shorthands because I didn't want to talk measure theory on Lemmy). This is so weird, I never got downvoted for this stuff on Reddit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Oh, sorry about that! Your cheekiness went right over my head. 😋

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The subset of integers in the set of reals is non-zero. Sure, I guess you could represent it as arbitrarily small small as a ratio, but it has zero as an asymptote, not as an equivalent value.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

The cardinality is obviously non-zero but it has measure zero. Probability is about measures.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Except they have convinced themselves that if it can’t be calculated it’s worthless.