"Non-deterministic" does not mean what you think
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
...at least in the theoretical CS context. A deterministic machine can only be in one state at a time; a non-deterministic machine is thought of as simultaneously taking all of the (possibly many) possible branches. A deterministic machine can simulate a nondeterministic one in exponential time, so the set of problems they can solve is equivalent, but obviously exploring all branches at once is going to be faster. Essentially, it's as though you had an infinite number of processors and could fork() another process with zero overhead every time you wanted to explore a new avenue.
When discussing indepedent vertex sets on a graph, Plotnikov seems to say that the set of all points in the graph is such a set. (An independent vertex set is a set of vertices in the graph with no edges among the vertices in the set; thus, the whole graph is an independent set if and only if there are no edges in it.)
This is on page 7, when he talks about partitioning the vertex set X.
When I saw this, plus all the minor errors in the paper up to that point, I gave up on reading the rest. Maybe he doesn't use that result later on or something, but I have other things to do today.
Mail it to me (via an anonymous remailer, if you like), and I'll critique it and reference it from
http://mter.enki.net/. I'm a non-degreed CS geek who has studied this stuff for fun, but I do know how these proofs work.
The load average is how many processes are, on average, on the queue for CPU time -- not the result of some clever algorithm for measuring CPU usage. So if you're running one CPU-intensive process (plus a few quiet daemons or shells here and there), your load average will be about one. If you have two processes that never sleep() or block or otherwise surrender their timeslices, and nothing else going on, it will be two. And so forth. So all those load averages mean is that there are a couple of processes that are always doing something, even if it's not much of something.
I discovered years ago that adding a terminal "." to the hostname will make the resolver go faster (tested on GNU/Linux and Windows), presumably because the . tells it you've fully qualified the domain, so it doesn't have to check local domains first. I recommned the practice for general use, with the caveat that it doesn't mix well with poorly-configured virtual web servers.
Why would the organizations that provide grants for these things not provide grants for research into well-founded alternate theories? It's not like there's a big profit to be made by pushing Einsteinian mechanics on an unsuspecting populace.
Generically, it is any n-dimensional space where n > 3. In the context of relativity, it is usually the four-dimensional thing also known as space-time.
IIRC, the cosmic background radiation is actually 3K, not tens of K. Or are you talking about something else, like maybe the radiation in the core of a galaxy?
Bullshit. AC said that the decision is up to Linus, not a firm "no". (And Hans is a bloody paranoid looney, if his comments about the Evil Redhat Conspiracy are any evidence.)
* xfs is very nice all around and thoroughly tested on SGIs, but since it's a port that isn't very integrated into the kernel, the patch is *ugly* and scary. I haven't used it on linux yet.
* reiserfs is fast and sweet, but I lost some data (recoverable, but still annoying) to a couple of development versions in reiserfs 3.6.* and linux 2.3.99pre*.
* ext3 does journalling of everything right now, not just metadata, so it's slow.
There's also IBM's JFS, about which I know nothing.
Actually, this sort of thing is thoroughly the *wrong* thing. A friend of mine who doesn't listen to Metallica at all was nevertheless banned from Napster, because some of the songs she had were Metallica covers by other bands, and happened to have the names of Metallica songs in their titles. If it was possible to search by ID3 tags instead of filenames, maybe it would suck less.
But part of the point of that story is that the pure-AI editions of the book, even in the age of ubiquitous nanotechnology, internetworking, et al., pales by comparison with the version that a real human actress is behind, even though she's "just" doing what the AI tells her to. It's hardly a testament to the power of AI -- more a nuanced argument that, yes, it can do good things, but humans can always do better, and some of the consequences of AI are scary. (Actually a pretty convential viewpoint, at that.)
Just out of curiosity, do you, as a libertarian, support copyright law? After all, it is a government-imposed monopoly on the production and distribution of a particular class of good -- i.e., physical works sufficiently similar to some other physical work.
While "strong" atheism ("I am certain that there is not a God") is indeed a faith, "weak" atheism (also known as agnosticism) is not, nor is the use of the scientific method. I do not believe in a God because I have not (yet?) seen sufficient evidence. I think poorly of people who believe in things without evidence.
Then again, I barely believe in Delaware.;)
Seriously, it seems to me that Katz is criticizing not Christians per se, but rather the general class of people who use their faith to justify hating and harming others. Unfortunately, if the last few decades' elections are any evidence, most Americans to whom Christianity is important seem to be of that sort.
Slashdot Mirror
...at least in the theoretical CS context. A deterministic machine can only be in one state at a time; a non-deterministic machine is thought of as simultaneously taking all of the (possibly many) possible branches. A deterministic machine can simulate a nondeterministic one in exponential time, so the set of problems they can solve is equivalent, but obviously exploring all branches at once is going to be faster. Essentially, it's as though you had an infinite number of processors and could fork() another process with zero overhead every time you wanted to explore a new avenue.
When discussing indepedent vertex sets on a graph, Plotnikov seems to say that the set of all points in the graph is such a set. (An independent vertex set is a set of vertices in the graph with no edges among the vertices in the set; thus, the whole graph is an independent set if and only if there are no edges in it.)
This is on page 7, when he talks about partitioning the vertex set X.
When I saw this, plus all the minor errors in the paper up to that point, I gave up on reading the rest. Maybe he doesn't use that result later on or something, but I have other things to do today.
Mail it to me (via an anonymous remailer, if you like), and I'll critique it and reference it from
http://mter.enki.net/. I'm a non-degreed CS geek who has studied this stuff for fun, but I do know how these proofs work.
The load average is how many processes are, on average, on the queue for CPU time -- not the result of some clever algorithm for measuring CPU usage. So if you're running one CPU-intensive process (plus a few quiet daemons or shells here and there), your load average will be about one. If you have two processes that never sleep() or block or otherwise surrender their timeslices, and nothing else going on, it will be two. And so forth. So all those load averages mean is that there are a couple of processes that are always doing something, even if it's not much of something.
I discovered years ago that adding a terminal "."
to the hostname will make the resolver go faster
(tested on GNU/Linux and Windows), presumably
because the . tells it you've fully qualified
the domain, so it doesn't have to check local
domains first. I recommned the practice for
general use, with the caveat that it doesn't
mix well with poorly-configured virtual web
servers.
RMS continues to work on emacs, gcc, and make.
It sure looks from the premier.cluelessfucks.com mirror site that there is a real Rodana and she's pissed at seeing this stuff made public.
The fix that works for my BP-6 motherboard is /etc/lilo.conf.
to add the option "linear" to
Did you try that?
Why would the organizations that provide grants
for these things not provide grants for research
into well-founded alternate theories? It's not
like there's a big profit to be made by pushing
Einsteinian mechanics on an unsuspecting populace.
Generically, it is any n-dimensional space where
n > 3. In the context of relativity, it is
usually the four-dimensional thing also known as
space-time.
IIRC, the cosmic background radiation is actually
3K, not tens of K. Or are you talking about
something else, like maybe the radiation in the
core of a galaxy?
Bullshit. AC said that the decision is up to
Linus, not a firm "no". (And Hans is a bloody
paranoid looney, if his comments about the Evil Redhat Conspiracy are any evidence.)
As far as I can tell:
* xfs is very nice all around and thoroughly
tested on SGIs, but since it's a port that
isn't very integrated into the kernel, the
patch is *ugly* and scary. I haven't used
it on linux yet.
* reiserfs is fast and sweet, but I lost some
data (recoverable, but still annoying) to
a couple of development versions in reiserfs
3.6.* and linux 2.3.99pre*.
* ext3 does journalling of everything right now,
not just metadata, so it's slow.
There's also IBM's JFS, about which I know nothing.
Actually, this sort of thing is thoroughly the *wrong* thing. A friend of mine who doesn't listen to Metallica at all was nevertheless banned from Napster, because some of the songs she had were Metallica covers by other bands, and happened to have the names of Metallica songs in their titles. If it was possible to search by ID3 tags instead of filenames, maybe it would suck less.
But part of the point of that story is that the
pure-AI editions of the book, even in the age of
ubiquitous nanotechnology, internetworking, et
al., pales by comparison with the version that
a real human actress is behind, even though she's
"just" doing what the AI tells her to. It's
hardly a testament to the power of AI -- more a
nuanced argument that, yes, it can do good things,
but humans can always do better, and some of the
consequences of AI are scary. (Actually a pretty
convential viewpoint, at that.)
It really depends on what language you're using:
use overload "++" => sub { @_ };
# infinite loop
for (i=1; i>=0; i++) { do_stuff() }
Just out of curiosity, do you, as a libertarian,
support copyright law? After all, it is a
government-imposed monopoly on the production
and distribution of a particular class of good --
i.e., physical works sufficiently similar to
some other physical work.
Don't you mean "Only Hitler..."?
While "strong" atheism ("I am certain that there is not a God") is indeed a faith, "weak" atheism (also known as agnosticism) is not, nor is the use of the scientific method. I do not believe in a God because I have not (yet?) seen sufficient evidence. I think poorly of people who believe in things without evidence.
;)
Then again, I barely believe in Delaware.
Seriously, it seems to me that Katz is criticizing not Christians per se, but rather the general class of people who use their faith to justify hating and harming others. Unfortunately, if the last few decades' elections are any evidence, most Americans to whom Christianity is important seem to be of that sort.