Yeah, it’s a matter of convention rather than opinion really, but among US academia the convention is to exclude 0 from the naturals. I think in France they include it.
Kogasa
- 0 Posts
- 21 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 12th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
2·2 months agoAlgebras have two operations by definition and the one thing they have in common is that the multiplication distributes over addition.
Yes, there is no notion of inverses without an identity, the definition of an inverse is in terms of an identity.
Stop posting.
Distributivity is a requirement for non associative algebras. So whatever structure is left is not one of those
1 = Ω0 = Ω(Ω + Ω) = ΩΩ + ΩΩ = Ω + Ω = 0
so distributivity is out or else 1 = 0
2·2 months agoIt’s a Windows Subsystem that is responsible For (Running) Linux. Yes, everyone thinks it should have been called Linux Subsystem for Windows.
3·2 months agoIt’s a different situation, as a dev I’d happily bet my life on this assumption.
Dropping support for that stuff means breaking 95% of the websites people currently use. It’s a non-starter, it cannot ever happen, even if you think it would be for the best.
Unless the improvements include making them fly at the same speed and height as fighter jets I’m not seeing the endgame.
There’s not much coherent algebraic structure left with these “definitions.” If Ωx=ΩΩ=Ω then there is no multiplicative identity, hence no such thing as a multiplicative inverse.
Code is easy in a vacuum. 50 moving parts all with their own quirks and insufficient testing is how you get stuff like this to happen.
No, they’re not sure. You’re correct.
Definitely not.
All people. 320kbps mp3 is completely audibly transparent under all normal listening conditions. It’s a low-tier audiophile meme to claim otherwise but they will never pass a double-blind test.
Web of trust
0·9 months agoIt’s not a 360 page proof, it just appears that many pages into the book. That’s the whole proof.
U good?
Your first two paragraphs seem to rail against a philosophical conclusion made by the authors by virtue of carrying out the Turing test. Something like “this is evidence of machine consciousness” for example. I don’t really get the impression that any such claim was made, or that more education in epistemology would have changed anything.
In a world where GPT4 exists, the question of whether one person can be fooled by one chatbot in one conversation is long since uninteresting. The question of whether specific models can achieve statistically significant success is maybe a bit more compelling, not because it’s some kind of breakthrough but because it makes a generalized claim.
Re: your edit, Turing explicitly puts forth the imitation game scenario as a practicable proxy for the question of machine intelligence, “can machines think?”. He directly argues that this scenario is indeed a reasonable proxy for that question. His argument, as he admits, is not a strongly held conviction or rigorous argument, but “recitations tending to produce belief,” insofar as they are hard to rebut, or their rebuttals tend to be flawed. The whole paper was to poke at the apparent differences between (a futuristic) machine intelligence and human intelligence. In this way, the Turing test is indeed a measure of intelligence. It’s not to say that a machine passing the test is somehow in possession of a human-like mind or has reached a significant milestone of intelligence.
Not really a substantial opinion, but I have little hope that replacing a fairly well established Rust codebase with a brand new Java one will do much in terms of increasing contribution.
Okay