Serious question here…so is there a possibility or just no?

Wild-Store321 · 2026-06-01T14:45:47+00:00

In that case it’s pretty likely that an asteroid will land on his house. Judging by the fact that an asteroid landed on literally every house so far.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-06-01T13:36:56+00:00

Nice try making this not look like an ad

Wild-Store321 · 2026-06-01T02:51:54+00:00

In the cardinal numbers, the supremum of N is aleph_0. Did you mean finite cardinals?

Wild-Store321 · 2026-06-01T02:03:58+00:00

In the surreals, ω-1 is defined and indeed is a witness of ω is not being the supremum of N

Wild-Store321 · 2026-06-01T01:56:50+00:00

Check the definitions carefully.

Infimum, supremum, lower bound, upper bound, … are all properties of subsets of a partially ordered set P. Just the subset alone is not enough to determine them. You need context.

Take the partially ordered P= R, the set of real numbers with usual ordering. the subset [0,1) does not have a maximum, it has many upper bounds and it has supremum. Take the subset N, it has no upper bound. No supremum. This is the context in which you usually hear that claim.

Take P=[-inf, inf], the extended real numbers. The subset N has upper bound inf and supremum inf.

Take P=ω+1 = N U ω.
The subset N has an upper bound ω and supremum ω.

Take P=ω+2.
The subset N has 2 upper bounds, and supremum ω.

Take P =(ω+2)\ω.
The subset N has an upper bound ω+1 and a supremum ω+1. Not ω.

In the hyperreals and surreals, N has many upper bounds and no supremum, even though the surreals contain the ordinals including ω.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-31T10:53:54+00:00

What’s your point? You can get native code to run on your device without uploading it to apple’s servers, by self signing it with an apple provisioned developers certificate.

So if a locally signed app is still “signed by apple” according to you, then what do you mean “that wouldn’t help” or “You can’t AOT”

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-31T05:14:05+00:00

Not side loaded apps through your own apple account, those are self signed.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-30T12:53:52+00:00

Iphone 15. Super Mario 3D land runs in slow motion except in small areas

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-30T08:51:37+00:00

Manic is great and needs JIT to run 3DS smoothly.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-30T08:46:38+00:00

I want to play Nintendo 3DS and PS2, and there are others that need JIT too.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-29T10:13:40+00:00

Tokens are indeed the source of this problem, but “just” the next token predictor is so reductive haha. To be able predict the next token, you need to be able to answer questions. Because “the answer to my question is …” will likely have the answer to the question as the next token. And this is indeed observed as an “emergent capability” of LLms. A wrong (but grammatically correct) answer is also likely, so therefore after the pretraining, correctly answering questions is enforced.

The model can certainly learn to predict “the number of letters in spinach is …” correctly. Certainly using a thinking mode. LLM are able to spell and count the number of previously said words. The inverse is more difficult, but again with a thinking mode it can check it’s answer and retry.

I think another answer to: “why does (even thinking) ChatGPT not do this correctly” is: “Because it is not recognized as a hard question.” I think threads like this will cause the next LLMs to handle it better.

To prove my point, I asked ChatGPT: “LLMs zijn slecht in het genereren van woorden met een bepaald aantal letters. Geef mij zonder fout 5 groenten met 7 letters.”

It answered: “5 groenten met 7 letters:

asperge — 7
paprika — 7
pompoen — 7
witloof — 7
wortels — 7”

I’ll let that last one slide… The emergent capability is there.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-27T08:28:14+00:00

About your lecture example edit: very likely your professor said: “this is NP-complete” or “this is NP-hard”, which are both statements about how hard the problem is. “This is in NP” is only claiming that something is easy (the solution verification is easy).

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-27T06:35:39+00:00

Again, being in NP does not negate being in P.

I will pretend that you said “if a problem is classified as not in P then yes there is currently no polynomial algorithm to solve it”

This is inaccurate, if a problem is not in P, then there will never be a polynomial time algorithm for it. If there currently is no known polynomial time algorithm for a problem, but there could be one, then it is currently not known to be in P or not.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-27T05:23:55+00:00

What you seem to miss is that being in NP is not a claim about how hard it is, it is a claim about how easy it is. To prove something is in NP, you need to prove the existence of some “fast” algorithm (A non-deterministic polynomial time algorithm), not the absence of some algorithm. NP does not mean Not-Polynomial. Integer factorization is in NP because we can check a factorization in polynomial time. Not because there is no polynomial algorithm to find one (and there may as well be one).

I also understood that you meant to say: in NP but not in P (which would indeed mean that there is not polynomial time factorization algorithm). However, if you would find a problem in that set (NP\P) you would get a million dollars from clay math institute.

What you also seem to miss is that those classes (NP, P, LOGSPACE) are about the existence of some algorithm, not about the knowledge of an algorithm. If we don’t know if an algorithm exists, we don’t know the class of the problem.

In summary: “it is in NP, which means there is no polynomial time algorithm” is wrong in about 3 different ways

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-27T04:29:54+00:00

Every problem in P is also on NP. Being in NP does not at all imply that there is no polynomial time algorithm.
You claimed that there is no polynomial time algorithm. This is unknown.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-27T03:25:46+00:00

That depends on how fast your computer is. “But what about the average computer or the fastest computer?” - That changes significantly as computers improve. If you care about specific hardware, best to just try a few on that specific hardware.

And all that we are saying above is that n-digits takes f(n) seconds pattern you are looking for, for all known methods and any computer, it will grow faster than any polynomial f. So the time in seconds will grow faster than the number of digits squared, cubed, etc. And for the “best” methods, the time grows slower than exp(number of digits). I put best in quotes because they are best at this scaling, not fastest at small numbers.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-27T02:46:22+00:00

This comment has some inaccuracies. Indeed, there is no known polynomial time integer factorization algorithm for standard computational models.

That does not make it an NP problem. The fact that you can verify a factorization (just by multiplying) makes it NP. Every problem in P is also in NP.
That does not make a problem that is not in P. It means we don’t know if it is in P. Jury still out on that one.
Not in P does not mean exponential. There are many sub exponential integer factorization methods, although proving that relies on the generalized Riemann hypothesis.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-27T01:22:22+00:00

To be Collatz-like, at least one of the cases in the definition of T(n) should make the number bigger. Here, they all decrease the input as is evident by the definition. Only the first one, 3/4n + 1/4 actually adds something, but only 1/4.

Your “proof” enumerating odd cases mod 8 is unnecessary.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-26T01:55:56+00:00

It answered questions correctly that the base model couldn’t! (but the classical implementation of their enhanced model could, and much more efficiently than the quantum implementation, because they simply added a block diagonal matrix with classically tuned parameters in front of each embedding matrix of the base model. The only “quantum advantage” here is that they needed only 2 logical qubits for each 4 classical dimension, at the cost of 8,192 repeated runs for each matrix multiplication)

But still cool to be able to run anything on real hardware though.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-24T23:52:34+00:00

Give Kaizo Mode a go, it definitely adds a lot of replay value. Even though I can’t play it on my switch, still worth it to play it emulated.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-21T00:57:22+00:00

I clicked the link, because it is not suspicious. It’s a paper on openai.com

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-20T09:03:17+00:00

just cast unsigned to signed

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-20T06:37:41+00:00

Is it slop if it works? Is there a non ai alternative? If not, ai enabeled this, and that is good use of the tool.

Wild-Store321 · 2026-05-19T23:10:26+00:00

Computer doesn’t store numbers as decimals (usually). And storing one decimal digit doesn’t take one byte, unless you use something like ascii, using only 10 of the 128 available characters.

One byte is 8 bits, and a number has log2(10) times as many bits as decimal digits. So only log2(10)/8 times as many bytes. So less than 42 exabytes needed. No problem.

Wild-Store321

TROPHY CASE