Activity Feed
#4848·Tyler MillsOP, about 21 hours ago"Complexity" in the sense of growth behavior with input size? Further reading is still suggesting to me that this is intrinsic to a given algorithm (or class of them). Intrinsic to the math and logic. Implementations can be faster/slower/hungrier for a given input, but if they have different limiting behavior, aren't they different algorithms? I can see how an "implementation" of one algorithm in practice can accidentally change it to another algorithm.
"Complexity" in the sense of growth behavior with input size?
Yes.
I can see how an "implementation" of one algorithm in practice can accidentally change it to another algorithm.
Not sure why you put that in scare quotes. You might be right in the CS sense where ‘algorithm’ refers to an abstract procedure whereas ‘implementation’ is concrete code realizing that algorithm. (Though as a disclaimer, I don’t have a CS degree. My experience with programming is fully on-the-job.)
My point is more that two different implementations that compute the same function can have different big O. In that case, they’re usually considered different algorithms, even if the high-level goal is the same.
Regardless, the structure of the program is by far the most important factor determining performance characteristics. If you were saying that complexity is independent of implementation only insofar as the implementation truly implements the same algorithm, then I agree. So I’m not sure whether I should mark this as a counter-criticism. For now I won’t, pending new evidence.
#4840·Dennis Hackethal, 4 days agoThe given algorithm has a complexity, independent of [the implementation]
No, the complexity depends on the implementation.
"Complexity" in the sense of growth behavior with input size? Further reading is still suggesting to me that this is intrinsic to a given algorithm (or class of them). Intrinsic to the math and logic. Implementations can be faster/slower/hungrier for a given input, but if they have different limiting behavior, aren't they different algorithms? I can see how an "implementation" of one algorithm in practice can accidentally change it to another algorithm.
#4843·Knut Sondre Sæbø revised 4 days ago"Understanding" isn't just another way of saying "can explain.". Explaining follows from understanding, but isn't synonymous. An RNG could by chance generate a good explanation, but it doesn't understand it, and therefore can't distinguish it from garbage. Understanding involves recognizing that something is a good explanation. It is conscious understanding that makes conjecture and criticism possible. Without it, you have no criticism, only random selection. What do you think of the suggestion that what's lacking from the explanatory universality definition, is an intelligent selection mechanism. A random program can generate any explanation given infinite time, but it will never select which explanation is good.
This is a good point, related to Dirk's #4813. As far as the bounty goes, I think my response in #4823 applies here as well, however. To refine it:
Recognizing, criticizing, and being able to understand explanations could all be requisites for tractably synthesizing any possible explanation. The bounty regards whether the tractability requirement can be done without.
It seems like a mind being able to create, recognize, understand and differentiate (etc.) good explanations are necessary but not sufficient criteria for personhood; if that process is intractable, then beyond a certain amount of current knowledge (considering that as the input to the process), the person effectively cannot continue with it... so that compromises the universality.
They must be able to create, recognize and understand any given explanation, and maintain that ability as their knowledge grows, ad infinitum...
#4839·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 days agoMaybe I’m misunderstanding you, but that’s how standing bounties work already.
When you fund a standing bounty, you set the number of criticisms you’re willing to pay for, and the amount for each.
If that’s something you want to do for your current bounty, you still can, before current funding runs out.
See also “How Do Bounties Work?”
Yeah, I'm not sure why I wrote this... I remember the option for number of criticisms now. I guess it slipped my mind.
#4260·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoA concept or idea with no experiential grounding is meaningless.
Maybe, but that’s different from confusing a parochial factor for a fundamental one.
Could you elaborare? Is the point that physical experience, metaphors and other things that ground ideas don’t constrain the reach of ideas at all or only partially?
"Understanding" isn't just another way of saying "can explain." An RNG could by chance generate a good explanation, but it doesn't understand it, and therefore can't distinguish it from garbage. Understanding involves recognizing that something is a good explanation. It is conscious understanding that makes conjecture and criticism possible. Without it, you have no criticism, only random selection. What do you think of the suggestion that what's lacking from the explanatory universality definition, is an intelligent selection mechanism. A random program can generate any explanation given infinite time, but it will never select which explanation is good.
"Understanding" isn't just another way of saying "can explain.". Explaining follows from understanding, but isn't synonymous. An RNG could by chance generate a good explanation, but it doesn't understand it, and therefore can't distinguish it from garbage. Understanding involves recognizing that something is a good explanation. It is conscious understanding that makes conjecture and criticism possible. Without it, you have no criticism, only random selection. What do you think of the suggestion that what's lacking from the explanatory universality definition, is an intelligent selection mechanism. A random program can generate any explanation given infinite time, but it will never select which explanation is good.
#4808·Tyler MillsOP, 5 days agoMaybe... but "understanding" is too vague, I think. Doesn't understanding mean: can explain? But then this is just "can create any explanation" again. I think the core question is why a random program generator isn't a person, coming from Deutsch's definition of a person as a program that has explanatory universality -- can create any explanation (my thought here is that this definition isn't good enough on its own, given the random generator point).
"Understanding" isn't just another way of saying "can explain." An RNG could by chance generate a good explanation, but it doesn't understand it, and therefore can't distinguish it from garbage. Understanding involves recognizing that something is a good explanation. It is conscious understanding that makes conjecture and criticism possible. Without it, you have no criticism, only random selection. What do you think of the suggestion that what's lacking from the explanatory universality definition, is an intelligent selection mechanism. A random program can generate any explanation given infinite time, but it will never select which explanation is good.
#4838·Tyler Mills, 4 days agoThe "Battle tested" badge should have a hyphen!
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/battle-tested
Thanks, fixed.
#4822·Tyler MillsOP, 4 days agoAh, so if I understand correctly, there are two knobs affecting speed (elapsed time) for a given algorithm: the hardware, and the implementation of the algorithm. The given algorithm has a complexity, independent of those two, which is how the time and memory scales with an input.
The given algorithm has a complexity, independent of [the implementation]
No, the complexity depends on the implementation.
#4837·Tyler Mills, 4 days agoBounties could pay out multiplicatively, up to a limit (e.g. 10$ per criticism, up to 3). This would preserve the incentive for bounty hunting after one criticism has already been posted.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but that’s how standing bounties work already.
When you fund a standing bounty, you set the number of criticisms you’re willing to pay for, and the amount for each.
If that’s something you want to do for your current bounty, you still can, before current funding runs out.
See also “How Do Bounties Work?”
The "Battle tested" badge should have a hyphen!
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/battle-tested
Bounties could pay out multiplicatively, up to a limit (e.g. 10$ per criticism, up to 3). This would preserve the incentive for bounty hunting after one criticism has already been posted.
#4824·Tyler Mills, 4 days agoThoughts on an optional "implies" relation for ideas? I find myself commenting on one idea something which it implies, then criticizing that, but the original idea is not marked criticized. Being able to chain or bundle ideas avoids the bookkeeping issue of having to make new criticisms for each step in the chain, if one is criticized.
Related to this or not, it could be useful to be able to set a bounty on a set of ideas, rather than just one. "Criticize any of these ideas for n$".
#4834·Tyler Mills, 4 days agoCurrently, a single gray "thread" comes off an idea, and splits off into sub-ideas. A single criticism in the above scheme would turn the whole thread red, which is ambiguous.
The main thread is ambiguous currently, by that reasoning: it's always gray. Having the whole thing red to indicate one or more pending criticisms below seems useful, and cool. And the offshoots from the main thread (the little curly part leading to each sub-idea) can have the new colors.
E.g.: User scrolls down the main bright red thread, past gray comment offshoots and dim red refuted criticism offshoots, until reaching the bright red pending criticisms offshoot that is the cause of the main thread being bright red. (!)
#4827·Tyler Mills, 4 days agoReiterating/refining #3904: I think the yellow "Criticism of" bubbles can and should be replaced by a graphical indication that is much easier on the eyes. The dropdown line can be made red if the comment it leads to is a criticism, and the bubble on the criticism can be eliminated. Reading the yellow bubble to get the idea # it is referring to, then searching the ideas above for the matching # is inelegant (even if it is usually the one right above).
Currently, a single gray "thread" comes off an idea, and splits off into sub-ideas. A single criticism in the above scheme would turn the whole thread red, which is ambiguous.
#4827·Tyler Mills, 4 days agoReiterating/refining #3904: I think the yellow "Criticism of" bubbles can and should be replaced by a graphical indication that is much easier on the eyes. The dropdown line can be made red if the comment it leads to is a criticism, and the bubble on the criticism can be eliminated. Reading the yellow bubble to get the idea # it is referring to, then searching the ideas above for the matching # is inelegant (even if it is usually the one right above).
And dimmer red for refuted criticisms, brighter red for pending ones! Default gray for comments.
#4828·Tyler Mills, 4 days agoThe yellow bubbles link to the ideas they are criticizing, which can be handy.
The link could be put in a new tooltip, or something. Or kept as is, just without the yellow bubble, frankly.
#4830·Tyler Mills, 4 days agoThe quote
indentation bar
is red, which would cause visual confusion.
It should be made not red. Gray. Arguable even without the red criticism line idea above, since it already conflicts with the "red = criticism" motif.
#4827·Tyler Mills, 4 days agoReiterating/refining #3904: I think the yellow "Criticism of" bubbles can and should be replaced by a graphical indication that is much easier on the eyes. The dropdown line can be made red if the comment it leads to is a criticism, and the bubble on the criticism can be eliminated. Reading the yellow bubble to get the idea # it is referring to, then searching the ideas above for the matching # is inelegant (even if it is usually the one right above).
The quote
indentation bar
is red, which would cause visual confusion.
#4828·Tyler Mills, 4 days agoThe yellow bubbles link to the ideas they are criticizing, which can be handy.
Is it handy? I have yet to want to open the criticized idea in a new tab. I have only ever wanted to scroll up to see it, which is slightly irksome with the current yellow bubble hashtag-matching method. And when the criticized idea is clearly immediately above, the yellow bubbles serve no real purpose, only add visual clutter.
#4827·Tyler Mills, 4 days agoReiterating/refining #3904: I think the yellow "Criticism of" bubbles can and should be replaced by a graphical indication that is much easier on the eyes. The dropdown line can be made red if the comment it leads to is a criticism, and the bubble on the criticism can be eliminated. Reading the yellow bubble to get the idea # it is referring to, then searching the ideas above for the matching # is inelegant (even if it is usually the one right above).
The yellow bubbles link to the ideas they are criticizing, which can be handy.
Reiterating/refining #3904: I think the yellow "Criticism of" bubbles can and should be replaced by a graphical indication that is much easier on the eyes. The dropdown line can be made red if the comment it leads to is a criticism, and the bubble on the criticism can be eliminated. Reading the yellow bubble to get the idea # it is referring to, then searching the ideas above for the matching # is inelegant (even if it is usually the one right above).
#4616·Dennis HackethalOP, 28 days agoNot sure this is a good idea. You say you wouldn’t mind horizontal scrolling, but users generally dislike horizontal scroll.
Could be optional, as I said. Rearrange top-level ideas as toggled. Maybe not worth the trouble. Just spitballing. See #4825.
Not understanding this criticism. Maybe my idea is unclear. I'm picturing the existing "column" of a discussion, repeated column-wise for each top-level idea. Current discussion content takes up only the left ~third of my screen, while the right two thirds of my screen is totally unused. The cost of using that real estate is more content (clutter) on screen, the benefit is less time scrolling up and down in one dimension, looking for given ideas and getting bearings, which I sometimes find tiring. A second dimension helps get bearings (e.g. "Oh yeah, this relates to that one over here near the middle of the third column." Rather than: "That one was ... 77% of the way down the page, hmm, what were some words from it that I can use to ctrl+f, grrrrr.").