4 ms·
> Without CPUs, we can be freed from the tyranny of the halting problem. Can someone please explain to me what this even means in this context? Serious questi
by TimSchumann 2y ago
> Without CPUs, we can be freed from the tyranny of the halting problem.
Can someone please explain to me what this even means in this context?
Serious question.
- benzible 2y agoIt's gibberish. For one thing... https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.03429 https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.03429
- orra 2y agoHe also claims that the cardinality of the reals is the same as the integers. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36074287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36074287 You could say he had a history of using big words to talk shit.
- WithinReason 2y agoA neural network is perfectly deterministic, the runtime is predictable before you run it. Which I don't think is going to be true much longer. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41623474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41623474
- mikewarot 2y agoThink of it as unwinding a program all the way until it's just a list of instructions. You can know exactly how long that program will take, and it will always take that same time.
- krisoft 2y agoBut will it always solve the task? Because without that it it is trivially easy to “solve” the halting problem by just declaring that the turing machine halts after X steps.
- TimSchumann 2y agoWouldn’t this also imply a lack of Turing completeness, and thus not be good for general purpose computing?