Comment on this one goes out to the arts & humanities

L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Rusty@lemmy.ca ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Is it possible to learn this power?

  source

  • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    No, but it’s extremely possible to copy someone else’s work on it from stack overflow!

    source
  • L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Not from an algorithm.

    source
• CowsLookLikeMaps@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  In fact, there’s infinite problems that cannot he solved by Turing machnes!

  (There are countably many Turing-computable problems and uncountably many non-Turing-computable problems)

  source

  • MBM@lemmings.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Infinite seems like it’s low-balling it, then. 0% of problems can be solved by Turing machines (same way 0% of real numbers are integers)

    source

    • CowsLookLikeMaps@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Infinite seems like it’s low-balling it

      Infinite by definition cannot be “low-balling”.

      0% of problems can be solved by Turing machines (same way 0% of real numbers are integers)

      This is incorrect. Any computable problem can be solved by a Turing machine. You can look at the Church-Turing thesis if you want to learn more.

      source

      • MBM@lemmings.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Infinite by definition cannot be “low-balling”.

        I was being cheeky! It could’ve been that the set of non-Turing-computible problems had measure zero but still infinite cardinality. However there’s the much stronger result that the set of Turing-computible problems actually has measure zero (for which I used 0% and the integer:reals thing as shorthands because I didn’t want to talk measure theory on Lemmy). This is so weird, I never got downvoted for this stuff on Reddit.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • DaleGribble88@programming.dev ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The subset of integers in the set of reals is non-zero. Sure, I guess you could represent it as arbitrarily small small as a ratio, but it has zero as an asymptote, not as an equivalent value.

      source

      • MBM@lemmings.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        The cardinality is obviously non-zero but it has measure zero. Probability is about measures.

        source
• vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Except they have convinced themselves that if it can’t be calculated it’s worthless.

  source