gwern comments on [Link] A superintelligent solution to the Fermi paradox - Less Wrong

-1 Post author: Will_Newsome 30 May 2012 08:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (75)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 31 May 2012 03:23:29AM *  1 point [-]

It just seems a little far-fetched - so not only are we thinking about hypercomputation, which I believe is generally regarded as being orders of magnitude less likely than say P=NP

Um, you do realize you're comparing apples and oranges there, since one is a statement about physics and the other a statement about mathematics.

Comment author: gwern 31 May 2012 03:30:11AM 0 points [-]

In this area, I do not think there is such a hard and fast distinction.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 31 May 2012 04:56:52AM 2 points [-]

So, how would you phrase the existence of hypercomputation as a mathematical statement?

Comment author: gwern 31 May 2012 02:13:14PM 0 points [-]

Presumably something involving recursively enumerable functions...

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 01 June 2012 02:28:25AM 1 point [-]

As someone who understands computational theory, I strongly suspect you're seriously confused about how computational complexity theory works. As I don't have the time or interest to give a course in computational complexity, might I recommend asking the original question on mathoverflow if you are interested.

Apologies if that came off as rude.