shminux comments on Mixed Reference: The Great Reductionist Project - Less Wrong

29 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 December 2012 12:26AM

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

Comments (353)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: shminux 05 December 2012 01:22:20AM 3 points [-]

Not sure how good an example apple multiplication is, given that if you multiply 2 apples by 3 apples, you are supposed to get 6 square apples.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 December 2012 01:50:18AM 15 points [-]

Hence my careful specification that you're multiplying the numbers, not the piles.

Comment author: johnswentworth 05 December 2012 02:25:56AM 10 points [-]

I found the use of multiplication particularly useful, since it forced the reader to pay attention to the physical/logical distinction. If, say, addition had been used, then a determined reader could try to use physical constraints alone (though they would be cheating).

Comment author: faul_sname 05 December 2012 03:51:28AM *  1 point [-]

If we assume that the 5 apples are spherical, and we cut the largest square sections possible out of each of them (leaving the top and bottom alone, as that doesn't affect whether the shape is a square when viewed from the top down), it turns out that these new squared apples have a volume of about 0.77 times that of a spherical apple. That means that your 2 round apples and your 3 round apples become about 6.49 squared apples. Rounding down, that is, in fact, 6 square apples.

But I do think the illegal operation was kind of the point. It shows that not all mathematical operations can be strictly reduced to physical objects (well, outside of the substrate that's doing the computing, obviously).

Edit: it was

Comment author: [deleted] 05 December 2012 04:22:24PM 0 points [-]

You might want to add some kind of smiley at the end of the first paragraph. (I didn't downvote, but I suspect that's the reason why someone did.)