ohnoNotAgain321

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by ohnoNotAgain321 5mo ago

   see also Stanisław Lem
2. 2.▲
   by ohnoNotAgain321 10mo ago

   Stop that, it’s silly.
3. 3.▲
   by ohnoNotAgain321 5y ago

   https://xkcd.com/2577/
4. 4.▲
   by ohnoNotAgain321 5y ago

   You may wish to run a memory test program; it could be due to RAM faults.
5. 5.▲
   by ohnoNotAgain321 5y ago

   so, something like: a6 - b2 - c4 - d3 - e2 - f1 f5 - a4 - b3 - c2 - d1 - e6 e4 - f3 - a2 - b1 - c6 - d5 d3 - e2 - f1 - a6 - b5 - c4 c2 - d1 - e6 - f5 - a4 - b3 b1 - c6 - d5 - e4 - f3 - a2 ?
6. 6.▲
   by ohnoNotAgain321 5y ago

   Now you’re just a few steps short of Numberwang: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Mitchell_and_Webb_Look#...
7. 7.▲
   by ohnoNotAgain321 5y ago

   Any computational system uses symbols, whether or not a person has analysed the system and defined those symbols; information is symbols.
8. 8.▲
   by ohnoNotAgain321 5y ago

   Presymbolic computation appears to me to be an invented term. Any theoretical or actual system can be framed in computational terms when analysed, but the properties provided through the use of symbols will still exist in a system, whether
9. 9.▲
   by ohnoNotAgain321 6y ago

   Human understanding of cognition is not yet at a level that enables the creation of a program or system for general automated theorem proving. Much work has been required to create existing systems for very narrow problems. Technology has