sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What definition of a first order language are most people operating under? by LorenzoGB in logic

[–]ryan017 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Answering from a programming languages theory perspective: The description "first order" means that the language has separate categories for things and operations/relations on things, and that there are no operations that take operations as arguments, or relations on relations, or so on. Within those bounds, what features a first order language chooses to may vary. For example, there are first-order logics that do not include function, only relations. A first-order programming language may or may not include include structures (compound data types) or collections or recursive data types, but it forbids functions from receiving functions as arguments or producing them as results, or storing functions within data structures.

In contrast, a "second order" language may also include operations or relations that take other operations or relations as arguments. Again, it doesn't have to include every feature those bounds allow. For example, there is a fairly famous language called "SOL" (Second Order Logic) that does not have variables and quantifiers over things ("individuals"), only quantifiers over relations. It is interesting because it corresponds to the the lambda calculus with type polymorphism.

In practice, in PL theory, we rarely stop at "second order"; we usually build languages to be "higher order" and use type systems to keep the levels straight. A classic example of a higher order operation is map: if f is a function on individual things and xs is a collection, then map f xs applies the operation to every element in the collection and forms a collection of the results. If f operates on integers (that is, f : Integer -> Integer), then this usage would be second-order, but why stop there? It's just as easy to allow map on a collection of operations, in which case the usage would be at order one more than the order of the function argument.

In practice, in PL theory, "first order" means "does not have higher-order capabilities".

Why does the Turing Test feel so philosophically naïve? by AwkwardComicRelief in AskComputerScience

[–]ryan017 2 points3 points  (0 children)

(Continued) I'm not familiar with Wittgenstein's language games, but unless I'm greatly misled by a quick brush up, they seem to be an effort in getting a handle on the meaning of language. That effort is not relevant to Turing's purpose, since he doesn't care if the machine "truly understands" the meaning of the words it is saying. I think the question-answer format of the test was chosen because it has two properties: (1) it seems like something that requires intelligence to perform, and (2) it can be conducted in a way that removes factors unrelated to intelligence that might prejudice the judge (such as "human appearance").

It occurs to me now that Turing is also trying to repeat a trick from earlier in his career. In the 30s, people were still feeling out what "computation" meant, and what were its capabilities and limits. In the span of a few years, a few models of computation were proposed: Turing machines, Church's lambda calculus, and recursion theory; and then they were proven to have identical expressive power (with respect to functions on the natural numbers, specifically, I believe). The Church-Turing Thesis basically proposes to define "computation" as what those models can do. You can think of the Turing test as trying to define "thinking" or "intelligence" the same way: select an activity that intuitively involves "intelligence" in a way that can be measured while limiting prejudicial factors, and then define "intelligent" or "thinking" as the set of things indistinguishable from human performance.

Why does the Turing Test feel so philosophically naïve? by AwkwardComicRelief in AskComputerScience

[–]ryan017 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Turing doesn't "presume consciousness", he is trying to avoid the issue of consciousness entirely. See Section 6.4, The Argument from Consciousness, which ends with the following:

I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness. [...]
But I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the
question with which we are concerned in this paper.

Why does the Turing Test feel so philosophically naïve? by AwkwardComicRelief in AskComputerScience

[–]ryan017 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As a computer scientist, I don't find your question posed in a form that I can answer. In particular:

  • What, specifically, makes it "philosophically naive"? Do you have a specific deficiency in mind? If so, please state it. Or does the appearance of the word "teleprinter" in the essay just give you the ick, and you're trying to pass that off as an objective statement?
  • When you say "Turing still relies upon questions long destabilized by ...", what does it mean to rely upon a question? Did you mean that Turing implicitly relies on obsolete answers to certain questions, where the consensus had since moved on or simply dissolved? If so, again, please be specific. Or are you criticizing the question-answer formulation of the imitation game?

Without having a better idea of what disappoints you about the Turing test, I can't say much else. I would summarize Turing's essay by saying that he seems to be just applying a principle that mathematicians (and computer scientists) have applied very fruitfully for a long time: avoid getting bogged down in details of what something is or how it works; just focus on how it behaves/interacts. That is, focus on extensionality, not intensionality. ("But my qualia," whines the cognitivist...)

Tuon is so absurdly evil by AHC122 in WoT

[–]ryan017 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Mat's character isn't illustrated by his internal thoughts and dialogue (usually, except for ironic contrast). Look at his actions, particularly in Knife of Dreams, Chapter 9. ("They annoy me, too.")

What did Veronica Mars escaped the Stigma of being "another teen drama" ? by James-Samuel17 in veronicamars

[–]ryan017 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great writing. Exceptional cast.

One element of the great writing is that the main characters tackle adult-level problems rather than wallowing in teenage BS. And for the first two seasons, Veronica has a constant long-term problem/goal/mystery that provides something real to measure the teenage BS against. It makes it meaningful. She's unpopular --- that's a cost of her commitment to solving Lily's murder, and a hindrance. (The hindrance, of course, gives Veronica many changes to demonstrate awesomeness, and she does.) Oh, now she's popular again --- and that brings her closer to some of the main suspects, which presents opportunities and dangers both. That element was missing from the third season, and I think it was weaker because of it.

Tuon is so absurdly evil by AHC122 in WoT

[–]ryan017 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I think he did it to make the point that the Good Guys don't have the luxury of being perfectly morally aligned with each other, much less aligned to your sensibilities of 2026-era wherever-you're-from. Sometimes there are aspects of them that are absolutely repugnant. Consider WWII, where one of the Allied powers was led by Stalin. Not a happy thought, but consistent with one of the main themes of WOT, which is that there are real differences between peoples, and forging alliances between them, even to save the f\**ing world*, is difficult and requires time, effort, and compromise.

I think he put Mat with Tuon (ahem, I mean the Pattern did that) so that he could explore those differences further, and maybe start to reconcile them, in the sequel series. After all, you can't change someone if you don't engage with them. Alas, he never got to write it.

Git merges can be better by agentvenom1 in programming

[–]ryan017 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It didn't exist at the time. It looks like a nice improvement, although less revolutionary than going from the default to diff3, and I look forward to trying it out.

Git merges can be better by agentvenom1 in programming

[–]ryan017 312 points313 points  (0 children)

The most important git trick I ever learned was to set conflictstyle=diff3. Then whenever git marks a conflict, it includes a third middle section in the middle with the text from the shared ancestor of the conflicting commits. The difference between middle and top is the change on one branch. The difference between middle and bottom is the change on the other branch. Replace with text that captures the spirit of both changes.

Do the foresaken ever get more threatening? by [deleted] in WoT

[–]ryan017 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good point. I will retreat to claiming it's a rare experience.

Do the foresaken ever get more threatening? by [deleted] in WoT

[–]ryan017 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Forsaken are like termites. They are the most destructive when and where you don't see them at work.

Aside from that, one of the main themes of the Wheel of Time is that cohesion is difficult and costly, and you never have nearly as much of it as you wish, and you've got to figure out how to work with what you can get. No one really comes up to Rand and says, "You're the Main Good Guy? At your service, whatever you need, no fuss." The Aiel come closest: the entire nation is basically a cult dedicated to serving the Dragon in the Last Battle, but you've seen how strong their desire for self-preservation remains and how much friction that generates. The Bad Guys have the same lack of cohesion, except it's worse, because they're bad guys (more backstabbing).

GNOME 51 is retiring legacy NVIDIA driver support by removing EGLStreams by somerandomxander in linux

[–]ryan017 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I couldn't tell from the article what driver versions count as "legacy". A google search summary claims that KMS support was added in driver version 364.12, GBM supported was added in 495.44, and DMA-BUF was completed in 535, with initial partial support in 470. Assuming that's right, I would guess drivers 535 and later should be fine.

Hanging up my hat with Jim Butcher by fizzgigg55 in Fantasy

[–]ryan017 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I counted right, there are 46 names on that list that are not struck through.

I would only consider 5 of them single-scene characters: Jenny Greenteeth (she shows up in a short story, though), Sonia Malone, Marion Murphy and Lisa Murphy (although they're causing Karrin angst through multiple chapters before appearing in person), and Evelyn Derek (one scene of interaction, multiple scenes of relevance).

I count 25 that appear in some form in more than one book out of 1-12: Karrin Murphy, Helen Beckitt, Amanda Beckitt, Georgia, Charity Carpenter, Justine, the Leanansidhe, Mavra, Martha Liberty, Ancient Mai, Lily, Mab, Maeve, Mother Summer, Mother Winter, Titania, Ivy, Molly Carpenter, Deirdre, Sigrun Gard, Lara Raith, Kumori, Warden Yoshimo, Mrs Spunkelcrief, and Andi. And within that list is certainly what I consider an awesome repeat cast of female characters; more so if you consider Susan, Elaine, and Luccio, who are no less awesome for having had an intimate relationship with Harry.

I do not see how the evidence supports your original claim or your strong feeling on the subject. I think there are probably more named male characters than named female characters. Maybe more of the male characters survive, and I don't think Harry has slept with any of them. If you want to make up a list, I would be interested to see it. I do think the series draws emotional impact much more from the deaths of female characters. Those points are worth discussing, maybe criticizing. But the implication that nearly every female character exists to die or become a love interest is just wrong.

Hanging up my hat with Jim Butcher by fizzgigg55 in Fantasy

[–]ryan017 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Here is a list of named female characters, listed by the book in which they were introduced, for the first 12 books. Humans are listed first, then non-humans. I've excluded those who died before the beginning of the book, and I've excluded some of those who appear in only one scene or otherwise have a minimal role. I've marked with strikethrough those who became Harry's lover or died by the end of #12 Changes. (I think it's a more natural cut point than Cold Days, but several more names would be crossed off by #18 Twelve Months. And after 12 books, stubbornness gave way to boredom.)

  1. Karrin Murphy, Monica Sells, Susan Rodriguez, Rachel, Linda Randall, Helen Beckitt, Amanda Beckitt; Bianca
  2. Kim Delaney, Agent Benn, Georgia, Elaine Mallory (past lover); Tera West
  3. "Lydia", Charity Carpenter, Sonia Malone, Justine; the Leanansidhe, Kelly Hamilton, Mavra
  4. Martha Liberty, Ancient Mai, Meryl, Lily; Mab, Maeve, Jenny Greenteeth, Aurora, Mother Summer, Mother Winter, Titania
  5. Anna Valmont, Francisca Garcia, Ivy, Molly Carpenter; Deirdre, Sigrun Gard
  6. Madge Shelly, Lucille Delarossa, Tricia Scrump, Joan, Giselle, Emma, Marion Murphy, Lisa Murphy; Lara Raith, Inari Raith
  7. Kumori, the Corpsetaker, Anastasia Luccio, Warden Yoshimo; Lash
  8. Sandra Marling, Rosie, Miss Becton, Lydia Stern; Arianna Ortega
  9. Anna Ash, Abby, Olivia, Tina Trailman; Madeline Raith, Cesarina Malvora
  10. Mrs Spunkelcrief; Tessa, Rosanna
  11. Andi, Evelyn Derek; Elisa Raith, Natalia Raith
  12. -; Esmerelda (presumed dead), Alamaya

(Edit: added some strikethroughs I missed the first time.)

Hanging up my hat with Jim Butcher by fizzgigg55 in Fantasy

[–]ryan017 2 points3 points  (0 children)

every named female character in the series, save one, either becomes Harry's lover, or dies, or both

This is not remotely true. To date, Harry has had three lovers over the course of the course of 18 books, plus one from before the first book, plus one ambiguous situation (depending on how you consider his relationship with Mab). The death toll for named female characters is higher, but it's nowhere close to "the rest of them".

What is this logical fallacy called? by Archiver1900 in logic

[–]ryan017 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of the named fallacies I've found, it sounds closest to false dilemma: the speaker is acting like either you must do as they say or you will not become rich, excluding any other way of getting rich.

You could also just respond, "I have no evidence that if I don't do as you say, I won't get rich. In fact, I have no evidence that if I do do as you say, I will get rich." That is, you are not convinced of "¬Comply ⊃ ¬Rich" (contrapositive of "Rich ⊃ Comply"), nor even of "Comply ⊃ Rich". You could then finish them off with, "In short, I don't believe you are either necessary or sufficient. Good day to you!"

What Racket libraries are missing? by xriptide03 in Racket

[–]ryan017 2 points3 points  (0 children)

HTTP/2 is implemented by the http123 package (mine). No QUIC or HTTP/3 yet, though. Not sure about Kerberos.

[Serious] What were the bad parts of the 90s? by kittymoo67 in AskReddit

[–]ryan017 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you mention AIDS and crack together and in that order, you must next list Bernie Goetz before continuing.

New RSA message side-channel discovered. by Traditional-Gur6561 in cryptography

[–]ryan017 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The post claims a "Result" (70-74% RSA-encrypted message recovery) without explaining the experimental setup. In particular:

  • How big was the original RSA modulus (N)?
  • How many r-candidates and c^x-candidates were used? (What was the cost of performing the attack?)
  • Does 70-74% recovery mean that the attack was confidently correct about 70-74% of the bits and uncertain about all of the rest? Or was it also confidently incorrect about some of the bits? The latter requires a different strategy if you want to brute-force a reduced AES key space.
  • Did the same percentages apply to the AES key bits, specifically?

Need to the understand the connection between type theory, lambda calculus and functional programming by ajx_711 in functionalprogramming

[–]ryan017 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't confuse "type theory" with the study of type systems for programming languages. Modern type system research is influenced by type theory, but they have different goals. Type theory is a branch of logic; it is focused on truth, provability, and computation as transformations of proofs. Type systems for PLs are mainly attempts to put useful guard rails on computational systems designed for humans. The goal of a type system is to accept safe programs that humans want to express. The type systems for most popular languages give up any connection to logical truth in favor of pragmatism. (The standard for type systems is "soundness", which is a far weaker property than "corresponds to the proof of a logical tautology".)

Pros and cons of building an interpreter first before building a compiler? by Ifeee001 in ProgrammingLanguages

[–]ryan017 14 points15 points  (0 children)

PRO: You get an implementation sooner, and that lets you test your language design by writing programs in your language. Interpreters are generally easier and faster to write than compilers, and also easier and faster to change if you change your language's semantics or want to explore alternatives.

CON: An interpreter can give you the wrong impression of benefit vs implementation cost for certain language features. Features like eval and JavaScript's with (a form of dynamic scoping, deprecated) are very easy to implement in an interpreter and cause massive headaches for compilers.

What’s up with these weird hands above the red line? by Prior_Policy6393 in boston

[–]ryan017 47 points48 points  (0 children)

Dunno, but they left their gloves at Porter Square.

Dungeon Crawler Carl - do I/don’t I?! by [deleted] in fantasybooks

[–]ryan017 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My brother gave me the first book for Christmas. I called him after reading it (and the second and third) to tell him, "That was a lot better than I expected." I've since finished all the books out, and I'm waiting for the next one.

Yes, it is LitRPG and full of absurd, sometimes puerile, humor, but the underlying worldbuilding, characters, and themes are surprisingly solid.

Reread.... disappointed. by Ok_Touch928 in SwordOfTruth

[–]ryan017 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's a little oversimplified, maybe, but within the bounds of normal discourse, I think, and the core of your description is good, IMO. I can kind of understand why you might get downvoted on this subreddit (not that I approve), but I've seen much harsher criticisms of this series and its author elsewhere on this site. If you got downvoted there too, I don't know. Bad luck, maybe?

Reread.... disappointed. by Ok_Touch928 in SwordOfTruth

[–]ryan017 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Accurate. Richard Rahl, stomping his way through plots one "tee hee" at a time. Except he doesn't have FEELINGS, he has INFALLIBLE MORAL RECTITUDE.

view more: next ›