You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Emile comments on No coinductive datatype of integers - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: cousin_it 04 May 2011 04:37PM

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

Comments (138)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Emile 04 May 2011 09:24:40PM 10 points [-]

You're allowed to invent an arbitrary scheme for encoding integers as strings of bits. Whatever encoding you invent, I can give you an infinite input stream of bits that makes your decoder hang and never give a definite answer like "yes, this is an integer with such-and-such value" or "no, this isn't a valid encoding of any integer".

I find it annoying how my brain keeps saying "hah, I bet I could" even though I explained to it that it's mathematically provable that such an input always exists. It still keeps coming up with "how about this clever encoding?, blablabla" ... I guess that's how you get cranks.

Comment author: cousin_it 04 May 2011 09:27:41PM *  4 points [-]

Yeah, that's a nice feature of the problem. I felt that too, and hoped that someone would react the same way :-)