Science Memes

11004 readers

2280 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1263

this one goes out to the arts & humanities (mander.xyz)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

248 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

In fact, there's infinite problems that cannot be solved by Turing machnes!

(There are countably many Turing-computable problems and uncountably many non-Turing-computable problems)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Infinite seems like it's low-balling it, then. 0% of problems can be solved by Turing machines (same way 0% of real numbers are integers)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Infinite seems like it's low-balling it

Infinite by definition cannot be "low-balling".

0% of problems can be solved by Turing machines (same way 0% of real numbers are integers)

This is incorrect. Any computable problem can be solved by a Turing machine. You can look at the Church-Turing thesis if you want to learn more.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Infinite by definition cannot be “low-balling”.

I was being cheeky! It could've been that the set of non-Turing-computible problems had measure zero but still infinite cardinality. However there's the much stronger result that the set of Turing-computible problems actually has measure zero (for which I used 0% and the integer:reals thing as shorthands because I didn't want to talk measure theory on Lemmy). This is so weird, I never got downvoted for this stuff on Reddit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Oh, sorry about that! Your cheekiness went right over my head. 😋

[–] DaleGribble88 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The subset of integers in the set of reals is non-zero. Sure, I guess you could represent it as arbitrarily small small as a ratio, but it has zero as an asymptote, not as an equivalent value.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

The cardinality is obviously non-zero but it has measure zero. Probability is about measures.