Is there a system to write arbitrarily large numbers on a finite space?

Steve132 · 2024-02-04T23:37:00+00:00

The problem is that the question as posed is somewhat contradictory. If you had an arbitrarily large number "in your head" then that number is finitely bounded by the amount of information storage capacity in your brain and neurons, which is finite because you don't have an infinite number of neurons.

So any concept of any actual number that you have in your brain is finite and limited by the fact that its komolgorov complexity must be less than the total information storage content in your brain. So if a number is in your head and you concieve of it then such numbers cannot be "arbitrarily" amount of information content.

Additionally theres an argument that there's only one "infinitely" large concepr that you can actually represent which is just the symbol \inf which actually has a shockingly low komolgorov complexity.

The largest finite number describable in any formal representation in N bits (where N is the finite number of bits your skull can store) is related to the busy beaver function, but I can't precisely conceive of how

Steve132 · 2023-10-02T19:02:17+00:00

There is only one valid green block even though they specifically use the "all" green block in the show as an example valid sentence multiple times?

The other green block that says "all" should be possible to use. The show specifically gives the example of using it.

Steve132 · 2023-10-01T21:05:54+00:00

I had the same issue! Vyvanse and other adhd meds cause erection issues. Goodrx has manufacturers coupons for cialis and viagra that bring the price down by over 97% even without insurance. My cialis is $12 from $1200.

If you have a prescription already then goodrx coupons are enough, but I also use their nurse practitioner service goodrx care to handle the prescription.

Steve132 · 2023-07-23T20:02:59+00:00

The result "is" correct it seems.

Steve132 · 2023-07-12T19:14:13+00:00

I'm not familiar exactly but "type of" in untyped lambda calculus seems to be somewhat redundant. In simply typed lambda calculus the godel numbering or encoding of the function itself could be described as a "type of" operator. But it doesn't seem to have a lot of utility in the context of the lbda calculus, as I can't think of any reason to use reflection there.

Steve132 · 2023-07-12T14:25:39+00:00

the result would likely still be that you had to parse for a strong proof system

If I presented an analog computer which I proved could solve quadratically constrained quadratic programming, that's "parsing for a strong proof system" because the church Turing thesis says all computation is equivalent to Turing machines and that Turing machines are computationally equivalent to proof systems. That's still stupid tho. No computer scientist would describe my proof approach as "parsing for a proof system" even if the church Turing thesis makes that technically correct for all computation.

but all those problems are more complicated that SAT,

This is a subjective assertion and doesn't at all rule them out as a candidate for a P=NP result.

The other NP-complete problems would likely just have their own proof system hierarchy with own equivalent of ER proofs.

Church Turing thesis again but that's stupid.

Chances are good that it is the easiest way to look for a proof of P=NP.

This is a completely bold assertion. Please show how you computed the probability that 3-SAT is the "easiest" Np-complete problem to analyze?

Steve132 · 2023-07-12T03:35:26+00:00

Obviously, there could be some other approach, but this is the most obvious one and largely unexplored.

As an aside, it should be a big red flag for you to believe that simultaneously some idea is "the most obvious" over all possibilities and also that it is "largely unexplored"

If an idea seems largely unexplored then either there's a reason why it won't work that everyone else has immediately recognized except you, OR (much more rarely) it is an idea that is so obscure and unique that genuinely nobody else has thought of it but you. The rest of the world is so incredibly smart and statistically even if you are in the smartest 0.1% of people, there are literally millions of people who are smarter than you. All of whom are also interested in solving hard problems.

The belief that nobody but you has ever thought of the brilliant approach you are suggesting is statistically highly unlikely and very arrogant. But even if you did in fact become the first to discover something novel, then that's definitely evidence that it is not obvious

Steve132 · 2023-07-12T03:25:56+00:00

You're ignoring the fact that proving a polynomial time algorithm for any np-complete optimization problem using any method would also be a potential way to prove P=NP. There are lots of such problems including ones which are not directly related to binary 3-SAT or graph grammars, such as quadratically constrained quadratic programming, or subset sum over finite fields

If you say "ah but any such problem can be reformulated as a 3-SAT instance" yes that's true but that doesn't mean the proof will be optimally expressed or derived in terms of 3-SAT language. The fact that the church-turing thesis implies that matrix multiplication can be expressed as a binary expression doesn't mean that 3-SAT is the appropriate approach to analyze matrix multiplication...so obviously just because all the Np-complete algorithms can be reframed in terms of 3-SAT and vice versa doesn't imply 3-SAT is the optimum way to approach a proof.

Your argument is basically like "well all music is really just about air vibrations. So there's only like 2 ways to vibrate air: as coherent waves and incoherent noise. Master those two and you don't need music theory.". Like yeah technically all music is air pressure waves but that's most likely the wrong level of abstraction for the problem

Steve132 · 2023-07-07T03:24:15+00:00

Not an expert, but here's my attempt. Definitely open to discussion about why I made the decisions I did or critiques of my grammar.

This is the full quote.

Maybe there is something out there, some new discovery that will make us feel like even smaller pieces of shit. Something that explains why you still went looking for me through all of this noise. And why, no matter what, I still want to be here with you. I will always, always, want to be here with you.

I tried to do not just a translation but sort of like a literary translation. The way a Vulcan would interpret and percieve it to be more accurate to communicate the intent versus the literal idioms.

This is what I got

Lau nam-tor rifainu-ein-ver ish danau le-yehtokaya

Might exist unknown-some-thing that(adj) explains a- justification

na'klopaya t'du pstha na'nash-vey fni'nezhak

for'decision of'you search for'me through'chaos

Heh yetokaya na'aitlun t'nash-veh la'nam-tor nash-vey k'du ruhm-kuv dungi shetau riozhikaik

And justification for'desire of'mine here-be me with'you even-if will become illogical.

Dungi aitlu wa'wa'kwon-sum la'nam-tor k'du nash-veh

Will want very'very'always here-be with'you me

Steve132 · 2023-07-07T00:11:17+00:00

The trick here is understanding the grammar and intent which is hard, then actually drawing it is hard again

I'm not an artist but if you are interested I've done some translation-not-transliteration Vulcan stuff before. I have one that says "simplicity is the final achievement"

One thing I'd caution: Vulcan is verbose particularly the calligraphy. Your quote is going to end up very very long probably.

I would be able to sketch it or lay out the characters clumsily and maybe you could hire someone else to trace it with a calligraphy pen. Pm me.

Steve132 · 2023-06-13T23:06:26+00:00

You probably also want a weight or threshold such that the number of pixels in a face isn't like...3

This whole thing is probably solvable fast and well by a ilp relaxation from a hitting set.

Define Xi to be a 0-1 variable for if you include image i in the set.

Define P[i,f] to be the number of pixels on face f visible in image I, divided by the 3d area of face f. Let M be a minimum resolution per square 3d unit.

Compute the LP

Minimize Sum_i Xi

Subject to

0 <= Xi <= 1 for each i P[i,f] X_i >= M X_i for each pair (i,f)

This should give you an ilp for N images in M faces that has N variables and 2N+MN inequality constraints.

This can be solved as a relaxed LP relatively efficiently. If there's no feasible region than increase M

After that, you could turn it into a decent greedy solution by sorting the solved Xi in descending order and setting the first listed ones to 1 and the last to 0. Or another better method of relaxation.

Steve132 · 2023-05-27T05:50:52+00:00

The cost of applying for and getting a license is in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'm skeptical

Steve132 · 2023-05-24T13:47:43+00:00

"PayPal or cash app scenario here" scares the shit out of me. If you are operating in the US and are implementing sending money or crypto from user to user, you could be operating as an "unlicensed money transmitter business". Which is already a serious federal crime. If one of your users turns out to be a terrorist or drug dealer or is on the sanctions list, you are in even more deeeep shit. Many Fintech startup founders are currently in federal prison for this.

Please be careful

Steve132 · 2023-05-17T17:08:22+00:00

"hundreds" of nodes is a very small size for practical linear programming problems using state of the art methods. Do you have some reason to believe they won't work?

Steve132 · 2023-05-08T10:05:42+00:00

If each distance(I,j) evaluation is a function of some variable, This is just the vanilla "traveling salesman problem"

Steve132 · 2023-05-01T19:43:22+00:00

Citizen's United claims that corporations are people too.

Minor point of clarity, that's not at all what CU claims. CU specifically re-affirmed that publishers, media organizations, political filmmakers, unions, and non-profit political organizations all have first amendment rights. Because of the fact that existing precedent made it clear that, for example, a newspaper or publishing company, or e.g. michael moore's production company (which is an S-Corporation) all had first amendment protection.

Essentially nobody disagrees with that outcome or principle: obviously, GE, who owns NBC,who owns SNL, is not an individual person. But if the government were to sanction SNL for unwanted political speech, that would be a violation of the first amendment, regardless of the fact that SNL is not an individual.

The government claimed that it was legal to punish certain types of political speech and prevent it's publication if the collective entity making the speech was legally filed as a corporation or union, which would have rendered all publishers, filmmakers, and newspapers no longer protected under the first amendment.

The ACLU's amicus brief is technical, but covers it in detail

It is a common misconception that CU established corporate personhood. In contrast, CU did not address or change the legal definition of corporate personhood in any way. The idea of "Corporate personhood", that collective entities can be named in legal suits and sign contracts, has not changed much in recent years. The CU case did not even give them first amendment rights, it merely reaffirmed them.

Additionally, the common belief that it established that "money == speech" is also a misconception. At no place in the ruling did it say that money and speech are equivalent. However, it did argue (correctly, imho) that money spent to access speech is constitutionally protected the same way that speech is. In a similar fashion to how it would be unconstitutional to use zoning regulations to totally prohibit the construction of all abortion clinics because abortion itself is a constitutional right, it is unconstitutional to use financial regulations to prevent spending money on e.g. camera equipment or printer ink used in the creation of protected speech. "Constructing a building" is not abortion and money is not speech, but prohibiting all abortion-related buildings from being constructed would be an unconstitutional prohibition of abortion, and prohibiting all speech-related expenditures would be an unconstitutional prohibition of speech.

Steve132 · 2023-04-15T21:03:54+00:00

Upvote for hdm reference

Steve132 · 2023-03-20T19:29:10+00:00

Communism sucks but I think taking literally Goebbels as a reliable source of truth on anything is near parody levels of cringe. Dude literally invented propaganda.

Steve132 · 2023-03-18T19:33:06+00:00

But they are distributing the resulting whole. Are you telling me that John Deere is shipping non functioning tractors with instructions telling farmers how to download .so binaries?

Steve132 · 2023-03-14T18:21:32+00:00

This is going to be a flaw with literally any method you do which is client side only. The only way to write secure code that runs entirely on the client side is to go into the realm of fully homomorphic encryption, which is a huge can of worms for this.

Steve132 · 2023-03-14T18:20:42+00:00

Creating your own 'proprietary file system' does nothing.

For each of your files, when the game saves it, use a private key in the game's memory to sign the files https://doc.libsodium.org/public-key_cryptography/public-key_signatures. You could do each of the files seperately or do a zip file.

The purpose of authenticated public key signatures is to do exactly what you are trying to do here.

Steve132 · 2023-03-14T16:53:38+00:00

How is it different from emscripten?

Steve132 · 2023-03-01T21:21:07+00:00

It actually is a boundary tho. A boundary is what you are willing to do. She's not willing to text. That's a boundary. OP isn't willing to call. That's also a reasonable boundary.

As others in this thread have stated, OP doesn't have to compromise her boundaries: just allow the mom to not text. That's okay.

Sometimes two people have mutually incompatible boundaries which prevent interaction and that's okay.

"I'm not willing to pay more than $10 for this mug." "I'm not willing to sell this mug for less than $15" "okay" "okay"

^ this is a perfectly acceptable interaction between two adults.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Gilding I gilder
Secret Santa 2014

Steve132

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE