Re: Jaron Lanier

From: Eugen Leitl (
Date: Wed Dec 03 2003 - 10:47:57 MST

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:12:04PM +0100, Christian Szegedy wrote:

> I would second to that. However the problem is mathmatically intriguing.

Computers are not built from proofs. Provability is a very strong
tool, unfortunately it has a reach of about zero amplitude.
Competitiveness pushes the envelope of the possible, so not much
mercy left there. It's rabid weasels all the way down.

I still find it quite amusing that we have noisy wet systems producing
strings of symbols they think reality is based on.

> For example there is the hypothesis that NP \cap RP = P. That is
> anything polynomially checkable and polynomially solvable using
> random bits can also be computed polynomially *without* using
> random bits.

Very good. Does this hypothesis come with a recipe how to use
that to find a recipe for the entire class of problems? It would
be quite sterile otherwise.

I'm not aware of an open-ended metamethod more powerful than
stochastically-driven evolutionary selection. It is what thinks
when you think you operate a production system for well-formed
symbol strings.

If you think you've got a better one, I'd like to see a practical
demonstration. Something of the "look, ma! no hands!" variety.
> Nevetherless this is only a conjecture. Nobody could disprove it yet,
> and a lot of complexity theoretists think, it's true.

-- Eugen* Leitl leitl
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:43 MDT