Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 19 April 2015 09:19:15PM *  5 points [-]

The clearest, least mystical, presentation of Goedel's First Incompleteness Theorem is: nonstandard models of first-order arithmetic exist, in which Goedel Sentences are false. The corresponding statement of Goedel's Second Incompleteness Theorem follows: nonstandard models of first-order arithmetic, which are inconsistent, exist. To capture only the consistent standard models of first-order arithmetic, you need to specify the additional axiom "First-order arithmetic is consistent", and so on up the ordinal hierarchy.

This doesn't make sense. A theory is inconsistent if and only if it has no models. I don't know what you mean by an "inconsistent model" here.

Now consider ordinal logic as started in Turing's PhD thesis, which starts with ordinary first-order logic and extends it with axioms saying "First-order logic is consistent", "First-order logic extended with the previous axiom is consistent", all the way up to the limiting countable infinity Omega (and then, I believe but haven't checked, further into the transfinite ordinals).

Actually, it stops at omega+1! Except there's not a unique way of doing omega+1, it depends on how exactly you encoded the omega. (Note: This is not something I have actually taken the time to understand beyond what's written there at all.)

Comment author: Sniffnoy 19 February 2015 09:15:36AM 2 points [-]

Not a substantial comment, but -- would you mind fixing the arXiv link to point to the abstract rather than directly to the PDF? From the abstract one can click through to the PDF, not so the reverse, and from the abstract you can see other versions of the paper, etc. (And you've made getting back to the abstract from the PDF a bit more annoying than usual as you've linked to it at some weird address rather than the usual one.) Thank you!

Comment author: 9eB1 16 February 2015 10:26:53AM 4 points [-]

The word savory long predates our modern understanding of umami. So when people use it, they could be using either the older, more general definition, or the newer, more specific definition. That is, before we knew that umami was a basic taste which represented glutamate receptors, other things that are related to umami would be considered part of the category of savory, like the experience of eating meat, for example. It seems a little bit silly that people chose to coopt an existing word to refer to a more specific phenomenon, but it's probably not the first time it has happened (although examples elude me at the moment).

Comment author: Sniffnoy 16 February 2015 11:43:58PM 2 points [-]

Hm; I was under the impression that, like, the old extension and the new extension were essentially the same -- pointing to the same cluster of things -- and the discovery of the glutamate receptor just clarified what it was exactly that that cluster had in common. I hadn't considered the possibility that the word was actually used more generally in the past.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 16 February 2015 05:22:27AM *  5 points [-]

Huh. I realize this has little to do with the actual point, but -- I had generally taken "savory" to refer to the basic "umami" taste. The chowhounds discussion is in that respect a little... scary? Not sure that's the right word. That said, I'm not sure that (aside from the question asker, who may get the wrong idea from the provided answers) that the answerers actually think it means "not sweet"; they might have the same extension as me in mind, and are just failing to express it in a helpful way.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 30 December 2014 01:56:47AM 2 points [-]

Since you specifically use the term "open" and "closed" mental states, I have to wonder about the relation to "open mode" and "closed mode" as discussed e.g. here or here. (The actual John Cleese video these are referring to seems to be no longer publically available -- or at least, the part that talks about "open" and "closed", anyway.)

Comment author: jkaufman 20 November 2014 04:51:08PM *  5 points [-]

I haven't thought about this much since 2011 [1] but I think what they've done in hardware is something previously people have done in software. It doesn't sound like they (or anyone else) has been able to demonstrate learning on their simulated nematode.

EDIT: Expanded this into a post.

[1] I looked into nematode simulations several years ago, and talked to a few people including Stephen Larson at the Open Worm project: http://www.jefftk.com/p/whole-brain-emulation-and-nematodes

Comment author: Sniffnoy 21 November 2014 05:22:37AM 2 points [-]

Thanks, I didn't think to check about people doing this in software earlier.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 23 October 2014 05:12:42AM 61 points [-]

Took the survey.

Comment author: BloodyShrimp 01 October 2014 02:42:19AM 9 points [-]

I would've entered! I loved the one-shot PD tournament last summer. In the future, please move popular tournament announcements to Main!

Comment author: Sniffnoy 01 October 2014 04:19:53AM 2 points [-]

Yes, agreed. (I tried to write an entry for the one-shot tournament but never finished; I'd like to see that revisited sometime with a Scheme variant tailored for the contest.)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 28 September 2014 04:44:58PM 12 points [-]

Any reason I shouldn't move to Main and Promote?

Comment author: Sniffnoy 30 September 2014 11:02:35PM 7 points [-]

Well, I'm a little annoyed seeing in Main the results of a tournament that was announced in Discussion... (not that I probably would have entered, but...)

Comment author: blumsha 02 September 2014 08:03:14PM 2 points [-]

Where from? I'll be coming from Ann Arbor.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 03 September 2014 04:42:57AM 1 point [-]

Oh, thanks! I'm in Ann Arbor too! Since the comment above though torekp offered me a ride, so it's not necessary anymore. Thanks again though!

View more: Next