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.

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

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.