The best part in the first picture is the "House of Yes" poster over the mantel - badass.
Re:Great, like traffic isn't bad enough as it is..
on
Nano Body Building
·
· Score: 0
Obviously changes would have to be made to the system. If people can work longer, they will be compelled to. What exactly is your point now that you know that Malthus was incorrect?
Re:Great, like traffic isn't bad enough as it is..
on
Nano Body Building
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Do you have an economics degree? Malthus was shown to be wrong about his conjecture that population would be limited by available land mass...accoring to him we shouldn't even have been able to make it to 1 billion...
The Latex and Tex sites have tons of Documentation, even to the specific codes for the symbols...and Donald Knuth, the guy who invented Tex, has written a few books, check out his site, and ask any one of your professors how they learned it, they probably have to use it all of the time.
The link to the story, http://www.bunkermentality.net/sg01.html, is a link to some "bargain computer parts" bullshit site. Why don't you check the link before you post the story, Timothy?
A proof verifier does not "check other proof verifiers", as you state, a proof verifier verifies manually constructed proofs.
Sure you could do this. If you constructed it properly you could use the verifier to check the code of the other verifier to make sure that it is in fact correct. But anyways, I was against this use of a proof verifier; it is greenrd who suggested using the proof verifier in this way. Why don't you bother him.
What if the proof verifier is faulty? If it finds bugs, they may not be bugs at all and vice versa.
Then you do what you always do when a proof verifier finds bugs in your manual proof: you fix your manual proof.
Excuse me, are you mentally retarded? This case I'm examining is when the proof is correct but the verifier isn't, so "fixing your manual proof" would be the wrong thing to do, because it's already correct.
I think Godel would have something to say about your "suggestion"
He probably would, but it would have nothing to do with his incompleteness theorem.
Sure it would. We are checking one logical system with another. The complications that arise in that situation are what the incompleteness theorem is all about, I think you are talking out of your ass alot on this, please go back to your compiler programmer boy.
As opposed to what? Proof verifiers take as input manually constructed proofs. So, a proof of the proof verifier's correctness is, of course, a manual proof.
As opposed to verifying the proof verifier with another proof verifier. You clearly didn't read my entire post carefully. I was responding to greenrd's post which reads:
It's the proof verifier which really needs to be gone over with a fine tooth-comb - which is why I'd advocate that proof verifying software should be itself proven correct, and checked by a different piece of proof verifying software.
He is suggesting that the first proof verifier be checked by another. I was suggesting an alternative to this. This was what my post was about in case you were unable to understand it.
And I would strongly encourage you to explain to everyone what Godel's incompleteness theorem is about.
And you might as well feed your manual proof to the proof verifier: if it finds bugs in it, that is useful information and if it doesn't find any bugs in your proof, you didn't lose anything.
What if the proof verifier is faulty? If it finds bugs, they may not be bugs at all and vice versa.
I think Godel would have something to say about your "suggestion"...
Travis
It's probably best to just prove the proof verifier manually. Clearly if you "proved" it with a different proof verifier, how do you verify that proof verifier? With the first one? I think there is actually a famous problem about this having to do with orders of logic and completeness, maybe Godel's problem.
"Lastly, despite the fact that the tea has caffiene in it, does it really mean that you can't drink it anymore? I've cut all caffiene from my life, but I still enjoy the tea at the restaurant with no ill effect."
Perhaps you were never addicted. I was (and I have since quit, but I drink it maybe once every few months or something like that), and everytime I drink a coke or have some tea, I feel SUPER for the rest of the day but when I wake up the next morning I usually feel like shit with a headache.
My guess is NSA or another agency (DoE?). Maybe Echelon. Definitely somebody who doesn't want to throw away what the accumulate - the obvious possibility is intelligence, of course customer and usage data is also possible.
Travis
"excludes telecommunication services"??
on
Who Is An ISP?
·
· Score: 0
So if it excludes telecommunication services, then doesn't it exclude the actual company you dial in to, and if it doesn't, perhaps it still excludes businesses that bundle phone service with internet access (I used to work for an ISP that did this [Tidalwave Internet in Northern Virginia]) from suing.
We don't need so many war vehicles. And why does it have to be named after the last two republican presidents? What idol worship and it's imbalenced - will there be a USS William J. Clinton?
This data is not representative of the U.S. market. European gamers have much different tastes in entertainment, leaning towards RPGs and American's are more into live action FPSs.
We need to establish a Programmer's Legal Defense Fund. Take a look at other legal defense funds that have been set up by other activist organizations to see how they work.
Travis
a useful puzzle.
on
Spam, Milord
·
· Score: 0, Funny
I recommend that the puzzle they have to solve is a factoring problem. Computer engineers trying to make their email clients faster would research ways to quickly solve the factoring problem, and then they would unintentially be contributing to number theory research. Hopefully eventually this will help break RSA.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out the cool pink frames. Or is it a self-inflicted April Fool's wound?
The best part in the first picture is the "House of Yes" poster over the mantel - badass.
Obviously changes would have to be made to the system. If people can work longer, they will be compelled to. What exactly is your point now that you know that Malthus was incorrect?
Do you have an economics degree? Malthus was shown to be wrong about his conjecture that population would be limited by available land mass...accoring to him we shouldn't even have been able to make it to 1 billion...
The Latex and Tex sites have tons of Documentation, even to the specific codes for the symbols...and Donald Knuth, the guy who invented Tex, has written a few books, check out his site, and ask any one of your professors how they learned it, they probably have to use it all of the time.
Travis
This is offtopic, but I thought I'd put it up for YRO people to read somemore. http://slashdot.org/~forkspoon/journal/5783
The link to the story, http://www.bunkermentality.net/sg01.html, is a link to some "bargain computer parts" bullshit site. Why don't you check the link before you post the story, Timothy?
Travis
Thank god someone understands the incompletness theorem and how it relates to this topic! Thank god!!
A proof verifier does not "check other proof verifiers", as you state, a proof verifier verifies manually constructed proofs.
Sure you could do this. If you constructed it properly you could use the verifier to check the code of the other verifier to make sure that it is in fact correct. But anyways, I was against this use of a proof verifier; it is greenrd who suggested using the proof verifier in this way. Why don't you bother him.
What if the proof verifier is faulty? If it finds bugs, they may not be bugs at all and vice versa.
Then you do what you always do when a proof verifier finds bugs in your manual proof: you fix your manual proof.
Excuse me, are you mentally retarded? This case I'm examining is when the proof is correct but the verifier isn't, so "fixing your manual proof" would be the wrong thing to do, because it's already correct.
I think Godel would have something to say about your "suggestion"
He probably would, but it would have nothing to do with his incompleteness theorem.
Sure it would. We are checking one logical system with another. The complications that arise in that situation are what the incompleteness theorem is all about, I think you are talking out of your ass alot on this, please go back to your compiler programmer boy.
As opposed to what? Proof verifiers take as input manually constructed proofs. So, a proof of the proof verifier's correctness is, of course, a manual proof. As opposed to verifying the proof verifier with another proof verifier. You clearly didn't read my entire post carefully. I was responding to greenrd's post which reads: It's the proof verifier which really needs to be gone over with a fine tooth-comb - which is why I'd advocate that proof verifying software should be itself proven correct, and checked by a different piece of proof verifying software. He is suggesting that the first proof verifier be checked by another. I was suggesting an alternative to this. This was what my post was about in case you were unable to understand it. And I would strongly encourage you to explain to everyone what Godel's incompleteness theorem is about. And you might as well feed your manual proof to the proof verifier: if it finds bugs in it, that is useful information and if it doesn't find any bugs in your proof, you didn't lose anything. What if the proof verifier is faulty? If it finds bugs, they may not be bugs at all and vice versa. I think Godel would have something to say about your "suggestion"... Travis
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/news/2003-04-15/poinc are/
This story came out several months ago and I believe it was on slashdot incompetent fucks...
Travis
"a different piece of proof verifying software."
It's probably best to just prove the proof verifier manually. Clearly if you "proved" it with a different proof verifier, how do you verify that proof verifier? With the first one? I think there is actually a famous problem about this having to do with orders of logic and completeness, maybe Godel's problem.
Travis
"Lastly, despite the fact that the tea has caffiene in it, does it really mean that you can't drink it anymore? I've cut all caffiene from my life, but I still enjoy the tea at the restaurant with no ill effect."
Perhaps you were never addicted. I was (and I have since quit, but I drink it maybe once every few months or something like that), and everytime I drink a coke or have some tea, I feel SUPER for the rest of the day but when I wake up the next morning I usually feel like shit with a headache.
Are the Winamp people going to do the release numbers by the Fibonacci sequence, i.e. 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13...?
My guess is NSA or another agency (DoE?). Maybe Echelon. Definitely somebody who doesn't want to throw away what the accumulate - the obvious possibility is intelligence, of course customer and usage data is also possible.
Travis
So if it excludes telecommunication services, then doesn't it exclude the actual company you dial in to, and if it doesn't, perhaps it still excludes businesses that bundle phone service with internet access (I used to work for an ISP that did this [Tidalwave Internet in Northern Virginia]) from suing.
Travis
but I hope someone implements this, because it's the way to go.
I just have to say well done.
Aren't they only allowed to black out stuff because of national security concerns or if it relates to ongoing operations, not just critisism?
Travis
We don't need so many war vehicles. And why does it have to be named after the last two republican presidents? What idol worship and it's imbalenced - will there be a USS William J. Clinton?
Thanks,
Travis
This data is not representative of the U.S. market. European gamers have much different tastes in entertainment, leaning towards RPGs and American's are more into live action FPSs.
Travis
We need to establish a Programmer's Legal Defense Fund. Take a look at other legal defense funds that have been set up by other activist organizations to see how they work.
Travis
I recommend that the puzzle they have to solve is a factoring problem. Computer engineers trying to make their email clients faster would research ways to quickly solve the factoring problem, and then they would unintentially be contributing to number theory research. Hopefully eventually this will help break RSA.
Tyranny! 'Tis tyranny of the highest order to commercialize Slashdot! I'm going to a new free site that hasn't sold out.
Senator Wellstone assassinated by Republican operatives to regain control of Senate.