hc

8 ms·

1.
by hc 15y ago
someone failed logic
2.
by hc 15y ago
. _
3.
by hc 15y ago
cool story, bro
4.
by hc 16y ago
fuck you
5.
by hc 16y ago
the funny thing is, this doesn't sound more or less patronizing than anything else that comes out of richard dawkins
6.
by hc 16y ago
is this fiction?
7.
by hc 16y ago
sorry guys. this site is not worth taking seriously anymore
8.
by hc 16y ago
lol
9.
by hc 16y ago
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FractionalPart.html
10.
by hc 16y ago
and how many studies did he throw away, when they didnt get the statistical significance he was looking for? now lets average all of them together
11.
by hc 16y ago
i dont know how to answer a single one of these questions.
12.
by hc 16y ago
the last paragraph is the first one you should read in order to decide whether this editorial is worth reading. it is "The right choice is to not worry about the state of Java's open or proprietary nature, despite some of the discussion occ
13.
by hc 16y ago
sounds awful.
14.
by hc 16y ago
upvoted for making me laugh
15.
by hc 16y ago
the reason there isn't a guaranteed compressor is that a legitimate compressor has to be injective, and there isn't an injective function from, say, {0,1}^[n] to {0,1}^[m] where m<n. in contrast, there are many guaranteed "decompressors
16.
by hc 16y ago
maybe i misunderstood your original comment. can you give an example of the sort of task you argue an algorithm is incapable of completing?
17.
by hc 16y ago
uh, what about the information existing in the probability distribution of the english language...
18.
Neuroplasticity(en.wikipedia.org)
1 points by hc 16y ago|0 comments
19.
by hc 16y ago
haha. is there someone out there who believes you get an education in these subjects by reading those papers that won best paper awards?
20.
Bill Gates on energy, philanthropy, and management style(technologyreview.com)
1 points by hc 16y ago|0 comments
21.
by hc 16y ago
lolwut? who youre describing is just a really brilliant person, not an "awesome coder"
22.
by hc 16y ago
someday your computer will be intelligent enough to handle the ambiguities of natural language as well as any human can, and then programming will be as easy as telling a good human programmer what needs to get programmed.
23.
by hc 16y ago
what a pathetic little child, who lacks the courage to apologize for his little temper tantrum. so to sum up, the issue is that kurzweil, an outsider, has dared to make a prediction related to biology with myers in earshot despite providing
24.
by hc 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affine_space
25.
by hc 16y ago
chill bro
26.
by hc 16y ago
youre so full of it -- you say this at the same time you have been karma whoring by submitting comments from liptons blog posts on P vs NP to this website, so which one is it, is the problem interesting and newsworthy or not?
27.
by hc 16y ago
Do you dispute the core of my argument, or are you principally interested in this particular semantic diversion? If the latter, do you feel that it actually helps answer the original poster's question? If the former, then what more do you
28.
by hc 16y ago
no, a proof that P!=NP would most likely have no immediate consequences for engineering ("practical") applications to anyone, the people most interested in resolution of P vs NP are complexity theorists and other theoretical computer scient
29.
by hc 16y ago
if you claim that O(cn) and O(n) are different classes then changing the meaning is exactly what you are doing. i think what you are missing is that in mathematics, the meaning of a concept is principally derived from its formal mathematica
30.
by hc 16y ago
you cant just go and change the meaning of big-O when you want it to mean something else, it has a meaning already

More ›