Prev: EINSTEIN'S ABUSE OF TIME
Next: NP+complete-problem navigation, search In computational complexity theory, the complexity class NP-complete (abbreviated NP-C or NPC), is a class of problems having two properties: * It is in the set of NP (nondeterministic polynomial time) pr
From: Marshall on 14 Jul 2010 00:40
On Jul 13, 7:18 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>
> > So your whole argument about "relativity" reduces to pointing out that
> > sometimes words mean different things, like when "blue" can mean
> > a particular color, or an emotion, or "marked by blasphemy."
>
> In a nutshell yes. As you yourself said "That's a different plus"!
>
> > Your
> > only *technical* point about "no absolute truth" is that there is no
> > absolute authoritative definition.
>
> Your "authoritative definition" here in this context is obscured.
>
> > Whoop de do! What an amazing thing you've discovered!
>
> It's actually quite trivial

Yes. All this stuff about relativity you've been saying
is trivial and obvious, as I've said before.


Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 14 Jul 2010 00:44
Marshall wrote:

>
> Yes. All this stuff about relativity you've been saying
> is trivial and obvious

Yes, The principle of it is very similar if not identical
to SR, which I'm sure you studied before. Did you not?
Why have you seemed to have problem understanding it now?


--
---------------------------------------------------
Time passes, there is no way we can hold it back.
Why, then, do thoughts linger long after everything
else is gone?
Ryokan
---------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Little on 14 Jul 2010 01:50
On 2010-07-14, David R Tribble <david(a)tribble.com> wrote:
> You can calculate the nth hexadecimal (or binary) digit of' pi
> in O(1) time:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digits_of_pi#Digit_extraction_methods
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe_formula

Those algorithms typically run about O(n) time(*). The really
interesting thing about them is that they use O(1) space(*), so that
you can get the trillionth digit without having to operate on
trillion-digit numbers. They're also trivially parallelizable.


(*) Technically slightly higher as integer arithmetic is generally not
considered to be O(1).


- Tim
From: Marshall on 14 Jul 2010 02:45
On Jul 13, 9:44 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>
> > Yes. All this stuff about relativity you've been saying
> > is trivial and obvious
>
> Yes, The principle of it is very similar if not identical
> to SR, which I'm sure you studied before. Did you not?

If "SR" is "special relativity" then I can truthfully say that
I've heard of it.


> Why have you seemed to have problem understanding it now?

I don't believe I've ever had a problem understanding what
you've said. "Words can mean different things" isn't much
of a concept. The thing you often don't seem to get is that
when we say "1+1=2" we don't mean " '1+1=2' ".


Marshall
From: Dan Christensen on 14 Jul 2010 13:22
On Jul 13, 9:29 am, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2:24 pm, Dan Christensen <Dan_Christen...(a)sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Correction
>
> > On Jul 10, 7:22 pm, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 10:17 am, Dan Christensen <Dan_Christen...(a)sympatico.ca>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > I can't imagine that you would be able to do very much using
> > > > "finitist" methods. How do they handle such basic concepts as the
> > > > square root of 2?
>
> > > Terence Tao in "A computational perspective on set theory"http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/a-computational-perspective-...
>
> > > in which he explores the question "what is the finitary analogue of
> > > statements such as Cantor’s theorem or the Banach-Tarski paradox?"
>
> > With your "countably infinite loops" (see link), it seems you are
> > sneaking infinite sets in through the back door. You posit an
> > algorithm that can complete an infinite, countable number of
> > iterations (ranging over ALL the natural numbers) and arrive at some
> > conclusion. Have such notions ever been successfully formalized
> > without referring to the set of natural numbers as a whole?
>
> I am not qualified to answer your question (if I even understand it)
> and as I work in the real world as opposed to some theory I don't have
> time to dig out the references now, but I believe that Ed Nelson and
> Alexander Yessenin-Volpin (both regularly mentioned in these kinds of
> threads) have tried to address that issue. See Nelson's Predicative
> Arithmetic athttp://www.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/books/pa.pdf
>
> My impression is that the answer to the "successfully" part of your
> question is open.

Thanks for your patience, Fred. I apologize if I seemed overly
aggressive here. It's hard not to get caught up in all this. Instead
of directing it at you, I should have said, "It seems THE AUTHOR is
sneaking... THE AUTHOR posits...." etc.

Best regards,
Dan
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Prev: EINSTEIN'S ABUSE OF TIME
Next: NP+complete-problem navigation, search In computational complexity theory, the complexity class NP-complete (abbreviated NP-C or NPC), is a class of problems having two properties: * It is in the set of NP (nondeterministic polynomial time) pr