Warrigal comments on Open Thread, June 2-15, 2013 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: TimS 02 June 2013 02:22AM

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

Comments (433)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 06 June 2013 06:33:36AM 0 points [-]

Well, he's saying that. I don't know which part of this is the part you're having trouble with.

Comment author: smk 06 June 2013 10:35:34AM 3 points [-]

I was confused by the way he was using the term "non-determinism". Then I read this:

It's important to understand that computer scientists use the term "nondeterministic" differently from how it's typically used in other sciences. A nondeterministic TM is actually deterministic in the physics sense

-Theoretical Computer Science Stack Exchange

Assuming that person was correct, then it seems like Aaronson is responding to an argument that uses the physics sense of "non-determined", but replying with the CS sense--which I'm thinking makes a difference in this case. But that's just what it seems like to me--I must be misunderstanding something (probably a lot of things).

Comment author: ESRogs 08 June 2013 12:51:12AM 3 points [-]

This was my feeling as well, that Aaronson was inappropriately using the technical definition of "nondeterministic" from CS in a context where that wasn't the intended meaning.