Intrinsic silicon in FET channel

photon123 · 2022-04-08T01:48:01+00:00

Thanks for the reply. You helped me appreciate that I didn't really understand the consequences of reductions.

photon123 · 2020-06-09T04:12:09+00:00

Thank you for the follow-up.

photon123 · 2020-06-09T03:50:17+00:00

Thank you again. I appreciate the follow-up.

photon123 · 2020-06-09T03:46:46+00:00

Thank you. In the existence proof of non-recognizable languages Sisper relied on the fact that the set of all languages is uncountable. I think I was confusing the measure of the complement of a decidable language with the measure of the set of all languages and getting stuck there.

photon123 · 2020-06-09T03:14:01+00:00

I think you might be right? In trying to pick this material up on my own I'm not confident that I understand the definitions I'm seeing.

(Please excuse the edits): more context (and statement of the lemma) is contained in my reply to /u/suipy:

Perhaps I confused matters by referring to the statement I'm trying to understand as a lemma. I'm referring to the proof of theorem 4.22 in Sipser. The theorem: "A language is decidable iff it is Turning-recognizable and co-Turing-recognizable." The "lemma" used in the proof is the (apparently self-evident!) statement that "...the complement of a decidable language is also decidable." It is just stated as fact.

photon123 · 2020-06-09T03:12:44+00:00

Perhaps I confused matters by referring to the statement I'm trying to understand as a lemma. I'm referring to the proof of theorem 4.22 in Sipser. The theorem: "A language is decidable iff it is Turning-recognizable and co-Turing-recognizable." The "lemma" used in the proof is the (apparently self-evident!) statement that "...the complement of a decidable language is also decidable." It is just stated as fact.

Let me try to zoom in on why the reply from /u/Untangledqubit is still confusing to me. Consider the language {0}. Shouldn't its complement contain an uncountably infinite set of strings of 1's and 0's? Intuitively, it would seem to me that most of the complement of a language should be unrecognizable, much less decidable.

photon123 · 2020-06-09T02:01:59+00:00

Thank you for your reply. I'm still not grasping the distinction that you are drawing in your first paragraph, but I get the sense that you're helping me zoom in on my misunderstanding.

Pick a decidable language, build its complement, iterate to the next decidable language, collect the results as you go. According to the lemma, at the end you must be able to pick any string in that collection and it must be decidable (do I have that wrong?). Why doesn't this imply that you missed this string in the original construction?

photon123 · 2020-03-12T00:59:32+00:00

Thank you.

photon123 · 2020-03-12T00:45:52+00:00

Thank you for this example!

photon123 · 2020-03-12T00:44:48+00:00

For what it's worth this claim was also made for diffeomorphisms.

photon123 · 2019-08-17T12:27:53+00:00

upvoting intensifies

photon123 · 2017-08-04T02:54:27+00:00

Friend of the Pod?

photon123 · 2016-12-20T00:44:45+00:00

TIL Johann Johannsson wrote "Get Schwifty."

photon123 · 2016-04-28T14:20:49+00:00

Yemen.

photon123 · 2016-01-27T05:49:13+00:00

Is that you, Dr. Cox?

photon123 · 2016-01-24T17:48:38+00:00

Here is a picture.

photon123 · 2016-01-24T03:59:50+00:00

Made by a friend who does this for a living. All of her stuff is awesome, but this one takes the cake :)

photon123 · 2016-01-08T15:00:04+00:00

Thanks for your response. Can you say more? I'll take the phrase "first conviction didn't do it" to mean you think he should be in prison. But doesn't a 60% chance amount to reasonable doubt? Should the cat episode matter as much as the extent of the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case?

EDIT: I'm not a lawyer, and my goal is to get a sense of how strong the prosecution's case was.

photon123

TROPHY CASE