▲ 229 ▼ I give back what I recieve just as the law requires (lemmy.dbzer0.com) submitted 3 years ago by Sivecano@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] perviouslyiner@lemm.ee 3 points 3 years ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) So that they can be taxed, of course. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pixel@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 years ago Well... tax on infinity dollars is (crunches numbers) infinity dollars! Government deficit averted! permalink fedilink source parent [–] kogasa@programming.dev 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) Computable. There are countably many computable numbers since there are only countably many possible programs. Non-computable numbers can't be exactly referred to / described / constructed by a program, so if your point of view is that everything is a program, you would say they don't exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silent_water@hexbear.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) homotopy type theory has a way to describe the reals in full generality via cauchy sequences, so if type checking ever gets proven to be decidable, this won't be true any longer. it's chapter 11 in the hott book. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I guarantee you're misunderstanding or accidentally misrepresenting something here. The fact that there are only countably many computable numbers is a simple consequence of the fact that there are only countably many programs, which is bounded above by the number of finite sequences of letters from a finite alphabet, which is countably infinite. There may be more finitistic/computable models for the real numbers or something, but "the computable real numbers" are countable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silent_water@hexbear.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) the model provided is a lazy cauchy sequence so any given real number can be computed to arbitrary precision. the theorems about real numbers are directly provable and potentially machine checkable, assuming decidable type checking works out. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 point 3 years ago Nothing about what you said contradicts what I said. You can either change the definition of the computable real numbers, or agree that they are countable. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sivecano@lemmy.dbzer0.com [S] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) my point exactly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dat_math@hexbear.net 2 points 3 years ago The meme is about computability of numbers though, not countability of sets of them permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) So that they can be taxed, of course. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pixel@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 years ago Well... tax on infinity dollars is (crunches numbers) infinity dollars! Government deficit averted! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pixel@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 years ago Well... tax on infinity dollars is (crunches numbers) infinity dollars! Government deficit averted! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kogasa@programming.dev 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) Computable. There are countably many computable numbers since there are only countably many possible programs. Non-computable numbers can't be exactly referred to / described / constructed by a program, so if your point of view is that everything is a program, you would say they don't exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silent_water@hexbear.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) homotopy type theory has a way to describe the reals in full generality via cauchy sequences, so if type checking ever gets proven to be decidable, this won't be true any longer. it's chapter 11 in the hott book. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I guarantee you're misunderstanding or accidentally misrepresenting something here. The fact that there are only countably many computable numbers is a simple consequence of the fact that there are only countably many programs, which is bounded above by the number of finite sequences of letters from a finite alphabet, which is countably infinite. There may be more finitistic/computable models for the real numbers or something, but "the computable real numbers" are countable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silent_water@hexbear.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) the model provided is a lazy cauchy sequence so any given real number can be computed to arbitrary precision. the theorems about real numbers are directly provable and potentially machine checkable, assuming decidable type checking works out. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 point 3 years ago Nothing about what you said contradicts what I said. You can either change the definition of the computable real numbers, or agree that they are countable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] silent_water@hexbear.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) homotopy type theory has a way to describe the reals in full generality via cauchy sequences, so if type checking ever gets proven to be decidable, this won't be true any longer. it's chapter 11 in the hott book. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I guarantee you're misunderstanding or accidentally misrepresenting something here. The fact that there are only countably many computable numbers is a simple consequence of the fact that there are only countably many programs, which is bounded above by the number of finite sequences of letters from a finite alphabet, which is countably infinite. There may be more finitistic/computable models for the real numbers or something, but "the computable real numbers" are countable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silent_water@hexbear.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) the model provided is a lazy cauchy sequence so any given real number can be computed to arbitrary precision. the theorems about real numbers are directly provable and potentially machine checkable, assuming decidable type checking works out. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 point 3 years ago Nothing about what you said contradicts what I said. You can either change the definition of the computable real numbers, or agree that they are countable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) I guarantee you're misunderstanding or accidentally misrepresenting something here. The fact that there are only countably many computable numbers is a simple consequence of the fact that there are only countably many programs, which is bounded above by the number of finite sequences of letters from a finite alphabet, which is countably infinite. There may be more finitistic/computable models for the real numbers or something, but "the computable real numbers" are countable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silent_water@hexbear.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) the model provided is a lazy cauchy sequence so any given real number can be computed to arbitrary precision. the theorems about real numbers are directly provable and potentially machine checkable, assuming decidable type checking works out. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 point 3 years ago Nothing about what you said contradicts what I said. You can either change the definition of the computable real numbers, or agree that they are countable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] silent_water@hexbear.net 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) the model provided is a lazy cauchy sequence so any given real number can be computed to arbitrary precision. the theorems about real numbers are directly provable and potentially machine checkable, assuming decidable type checking works out. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 point 3 years ago Nothing about what you said contradicts what I said. You can either change the definition of the computable real numbers, or agree that they are countable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 point 3 years ago Nothing about what you said contradicts what I said. You can either change the definition of the computable real numbers, or agree that they are countable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sivecano@lemmy.dbzer0.com [S] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) my point exactly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dat_math@hexbear.net 2 points 3 years ago The meme is about computability of numbers though, not countability of sets of them permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dat_math@hexbear.net 2 points 3 years ago The meme is about computability of numbers though, not countability of sets of them permalink fedilink source parent
