he folded to brazilian courts last year. but now, with trump in power, he may have more means to pressure back.
zeca
joined 3 months ago
why dont they show ads in albania?
and the bot still tends to ignore some instructions
it could be interesting for discussing the practice of oeganization, not for actually organizing through lemmy. Like there are forums for discussing self-hosting online services and so on.
Never said AGI would be unable to.
Not my point... and you know it. My point is that even if we consider that proven theorems are known facts, we still dont know if hypercomputers are infeasible. We know, however, that i'll never write python code that decides Validity because it is not (classically) decidable. But we have no theorems on the impossibility of hypercomputation.
Right, validity is semidecidable, just like the halting problem.
We might never know for certain that any natural law is true, we might never be certain that that oracle actually solves validity. But that doesnt prevent the oracle from working. My point is that its existence is possible, not that we will ever be able to trust it.
Besides, we dont know that the physical laws we work with today are true, but we nevetheless use them for practical purpuses all the time.
Turing machines can’t exist, either.
Oh no! You got me there!
Why do you need uncountable infinities for hypercomputers, though?. I see that Martin Davis criticism has to do with that approach, and I agree this approach seems silly. But, it doesnt seem to cover all potential fronts for hypercomputers. Im not talking about current approaches to quantum computing either. What if some yet unknown physical law makes arrangements of particles somehow solve the first order logic validity problem, which is also not in R? Doesnt involve uncountable infinity at all. Again, im not saying its possible, just that theres no purely logical proof of impossibility, thats all.
A hypercomputer has its own class of unsolvable problems, I agree. That doesnt mean that a hypercomputer cannot exist.
church-turing is a a thesis, not a logical theorem. You pointed me to a proof that the halting problem is unsolvable by a Turing Machine, not that hypercomputers are impossible.
The critic Martin Davis mentioned in wikipedia has an article criticizing a kind of attempt at showing the feasibility of hypercomputers. Thats fine. If there was a well-known logical proof of its unfeasibility, his task would be much simpler though. The purely logical argument hasnt been made as far as i know and as far as you were able to show.
The diagonalization argument you pointed me to is about the uncomputability of the halting problem. I know about it, but it just proves that no turing machine can solve the halting problem. Hypercomputers are supposed to NOT be turing machines, so theres no proof of the impossibility of hypercomputers to be found there.
to not piss off computer scientists and mathematicians with their dear word "algorithm", you may want to narrow it down with the expression recommendation algorithms.