Google claims to have achieved "quantum supremacy" - quantum computers are able to solve problems beyond the reach of normal computers Computer Science |
- Google claims to have achieved "quantum supremacy" - quantum computers are able to solve problems beyond the reach of normal computers
- For those doing academic work in Computer Graphics, how much proof work is there?
- Does anyone know types of work that combine computer science and physics?
- Thought i had a godel numbering of lambdas, but cant seem to define dedup(lambdaA,lambdaB) even with transfinite steps (halting oracle is not a lambda but is true or false for each call). start with doesnthalt. then universalLambda. then for all pairs call one on the other, dedup, append if unique.
- Feedback for a simple Javascript state management library
- 3D Generative Design and Processing
- Best computer science field to get into for someone with no IT background?
- Zooming into the world of computer vision applications
- Exploring .git folder of TensorFlow
| Posted: 20 Sep 2019 01:03 PM PDT |
| For those doing academic work in Computer Graphics, how much proof work is there? Posted: 20 Sep 2019 07:31 AM PDT I have a degree in CS and I am looking to apply to grad school. I really like programming, but I love math, however, I mostly love math in the context of using it for creative work. Think, for example, how B-splines are used to create models in CAD. But I also love proofs, proofs are beautiful. I am really interested in CG and will most likely try to pursue a degree in the field. How often do you have to do proofs? Is it an important part of your work? I would be a bit sad if all I ever do is code but never get to sit and prove something. Edit: There seems to be a war in the comments. I do read papers, I also attended SIGGRAPH this year. But the thing is, to know the proportion of papers in CG that have hard proofs as a major component, I would need to survey a REALLY large amount of papers. Moreover, I do not have enough experience to judge how advanced or complex the commonly found proofs in CG will be. Which is why I am asking for those of you ahead of me to share a bit of your experience with me. [link] [comments]  |
| Does anyone know types of work that combine computer science and physics? Posted: 20 Sep 2019 07:08 PM PDT Those are my major and minor respectively. It would be awesome to do them both after I graduate. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 20 Sep 2019 08:46 PM PDT Nut sure about this unique concept, meaning that exists lambda param that for some other unique lambda they return different. If it doesnt halt, then after infinite steps it returns lambda 0 aka doesnthalt, which in any combo also returns itself. same behavior (func param return) so the middle steps are not relevant. lambdas are mappings of param to return. if it doesnt return, there is nothing different you could observe about it. Internal calculations would of course be a debuggerlike view made of other lambdas, such as a cons of func and param, cons being Lx..Ly.Lz.zxy (call param on the car then what that returns call it on the cdr, so get first or get second would return x or y, and so on. iota, made of s k and few forms for curring up to 2, can represent any of that without var names. iota is cons s k. doesntHalt any universal lambda (such as iota) (doesntHalt iota) - lets call this c - dedup to doesntHalt (iota doesnthalt) - lets call this d - dedup to doesntHalt (iota iota) and so on then all ordered pairs of those 4, and so on, except dedup, whatever that means and reuse the one already lower in the list, if its always the same param return mapping (the axiom being dedup exists, and may have to disprove by contradiction?) Problem is they're calling lambdas higher in the list than themself, and its tangled hard to imagine what dedup means before having the whole list, 1 lambda per integer, to check all triples func param return and see if theres any duplicate and append if has any difference. If that axiom (to be proven or disproven by contradiction) were true, then the real/irrational numbers can be represented each as a function of bitstring (cons of T, F, cons next in linkedlist etc, whats nil?), meaning digit index, to bit (T or F). It is believed by most experts that the integers can not be mapped 1 to 1 with the reals. Some vague statement about cardinality, but no formal definition of cardinality. Every integer has a finite number of digits, by definition, but there are an infinite number of integers. a real has an infinite number of digits as defined by some function of digit index to bit. No.. that would mean it has to have finite kolmogorov complexity, which im unsure what infinite complexity means except that if compressed it for example would be about size-log(size) bits maybe a little less maybe more. If you have more than an infinite number of calculations available and can check if a certain thing ever occurs, there may be hard to imagine things that are, people say, part of the reals, even though Im unsure of any specific one, since if someone said a specific one in a finite number of words to me then a function of finite size returns it, so its impossible for anyone to give an example by saying it, but it is not necessarily impossible to observe its effects such as maybe it affects shors algorithm or some tangled manifold that happens to be a thing that to prove would take infinite and more cycles but since the universe is all self consistent math statements, one could say the third of those unknown after those we know, and so on, but we dont have much words for it. I want a perfect godel numbering, not to use it in digital or quantum computers, but to know what the field we live in, a curved manifold, is shaped like, based on the axiom that it contains only 1 of each thing where a duplicate would be there is no way to detect, regardless of number of cycles (infinite cardinality, doesnt matter, no way to detect any difference). If the universe were anything else, its kolmogorov complexity would be higher than 0, which axiom it is 0. also cuz it might make an interesting ethereum game to speculate which function is which of the low integers then later to find a disproof so those above are wrong and have to slide down or should the be there at all. plus it could, if you had infinity squared cycles, compress any function perfectly, such as a random 40 bits might be found to cost 35 or might cost 41, appending of course a linkedlist of bits if to specialize in bitstrings instead of functions since there are far fewer and many functions would be sorted earlier. bitstrings are more complex cuz you have to first define the linkedlist ops and the t and f. or maybe that wouldnt help, unsure. one can always prefer a certain subset of functions and say they should be sorted simpler, but thats just cuz we normally write things in a 1d dimension left to right instead of listing every permutation etc. It at worst adds a few bits to have a bitstring after the function which takes it as param. Even if there is no perfect dedup, it wouldnt be much bigger cuz u just put the model of computing you want near the start of the bitstring. Its probably near the same in the function part but its just hard to imagine... but only if its perfect dedup else it would not compress well so you would do better to put any other model of computing in the bitstring and run that. or maybe should use Lx.Ly.yx where the order is reversed, a func calling one farther in the list, could call that swap lambda on the higher and what that returns on the lower, but the swap lambda would be near the start of the list so its stil calling lower on higher, or maybe it should be defined as the last one but there is no last integer. or maybe just duplicate it in the list every such call for only constant times more of them. but then its not unique. Either, way i believe but dont know how to prove, that p not equal np cuz np includes perfect compression limited to finite compute steps, and functions are compressed better when listing those that halt first, even if such compression is just those funcs that return bitstring (linkedlist of t f). but its compression in some nand based sequence of bit ops 2 bits become 1 next bit and so on unrolled, whatever that does, not function based lower level, and that might compress slightly different. all possible functions vs only those that fit in a finite space. theres a finite number of functions, just dont know how to sort them. i could make an iota emulator with nands would take a while... it doesnt change p equals np or not. could also make a debugstep func so always halts in finite time but if looped may not ever say its done at the highe level (above debugstep), and such steps limit to height steps each and height rises by at most 1 each time, and if i included an op to give up on a certain lambda call and call some other pair to get a lazyeval to step setp... doesnt matter np means nondeterminsitc it has to answer as if it checked all paths does any such compression have at most this many bits (trail 0s, sort by digits before that). Every answer, that is the smallest compressed form (the nands last row is those bits as one of the np solutions, is a halting lambda call (since the nands emulate every finite number of steps fo every possible lambdas. Every lambda call which halts, halts in a finite number of steps s. np on size s will therefore detect that the lambda call of the best possible compression (in nand emulation of iotas) halts in s steps. The best possible compression of x cant be much bigger than x (kolmogorovcomplexity equations), depending slightly by model of computing but all within P. The best possible compression of x returns in time which may be any finite number, such as super super super exponential. the number of compute steps is the number of nands and P times more at most. it seems obvious from that p not equal np, but i dont know how to write the reasons except that compression shouldnt differ from P or np just cuz it excludes those that cost more cycles than we didnt simulate enough steps with the nands so the best compression did not halt by then but it would halt eventually. np cant know if it will halt only cuz np doesnt know which finite number of steps the halting lambda halts at, but we do know it halts by definition of it being the best compression of that finite bitstring asked to compress. since it may be super super super ...any finite number of them... superexponential number of steps to find how many steps it halts at, even though we are given it halts sometime, and since that is bigger than worst case of np which is check all exponential combos of all the bits in the nand gates and choose the one with the lowest sorted output row (trailing 0s not counted, after a 1 to say it ends)... finding the best compression regardless of number of cycles it takes, requires far more than exptime. the super super super... can ask for the answer to generated np questions, can ask a superexponential number of such questions and call funcs on the answers to those. not sure how many of those are unique, if it duplicates a func that returns earlier, but it can do so if you have the cycles. For example, crypt triples of bits by xoring 1 of them if the AND of the other 2 (and the other 2 being 00 01 10 11 in case someone tries all 0s or all 1s and it would be stable, but random combo of those can emulate every np question by starting the input bits as 0 where the bit to be flipped so only flip it or not once. then after many such bit ops xor the input bits with the output bits, so even though its unitary can compute forward or backward, dont have either the input or the output and should lose about 1 (slightly less probly) bit of randomness if the number of 3 bit transforms limits to infinity. but if only P number of them, probably loses maybe half its bits of randomness somewhere between. Id trust that more than any other hash ive seen, though its slower, cuz it selects randomly from np problems and more often overlaps them xoring then flip again in other 3. has only P state size, that being exactly the input and output size, but so do common hashes have just a few times that state size, so at worst its a few times less random bits etc. each read of 2 bits and write of 1 bit unitarily, is affected by more inputs than outputs affected, regardless if its computed forward or backward its 2 in 1 write. and it can emulate the existing hash algorithms in some rare combo of the nand/xors and only using part of the inputs the others being temp vars. since it can emulate them without losing more than P fraction of its bits (such as sha256 has 64 cycles so just 64 times worse, etc, not a bigo problem).. since it can emulate all those and not exponentially infrequently, since those are a Pnumber of nand ops and if the input size is like twice that... no it does occur exponentially infreuqently to have a copy of sha256 in a random set of gates, butat least in the case of limit infinitely many such ops it would cover no more than np cuz it has linear memory... or can it check subcalls of derived np questions and store a bit of their answer... it can but it wouldnt be able to reuse any bits for any known np questions ince they were modified and cant check if they are 0 since the answer xors another bit var and to check if that one is 1 or 0 recurse same problem. but since its unitary and contains every possible np question, no output occurs more or less than once, so there is no loss of entropy to look into. at every step its still unitary. but im unsure how many nand/xors it needs to be as good as existing hashes. The best possible compression takes super super super... superexponetial steps to halt but all compressions halt by definition of they return the bitstring asked to compress. But unsure if the exponential number of possible outputs that size (each bit both cases) would get quickly filled around the exponential number of funcs tried, vs if some few would remain without knowing if anything returns them. Does a function return x, for some given x? ask about a function that halts right after that. requires halting oracle if need in finite steps for every possible func. no combo of nands contains a halting oracle since its finite size. theres no way to know if each possible func up to a little bigger than number of bits to compress... no way to know if such func ever halts, except some are so simple its quickly proven in the first few steps but thats an arbitrary choice to look those first few steps instead of few+1. no way to know it ever halts, so theres no way to know if it halts in P steps except to compute those. if the input to compress is the nth-mth binary digits of 1/e xor some other digits of pi, it seems unlikely to find that except by trying all combos of such ranges of e and pi. but it is small to compress since e and pi are small equations. if it also includes to look at another such range and jump to that position in the other number, that jump could cost exponential steps to find since we dont even know e or pi or jumping is involved. but its still very small to compress. Any finite number could be built from such "random"-like bits in e or pi, like grab a few ranges and get the super super super super exponential some digit index like that in pi, and its still smaller than the input bits. the compression is this simple idea of math ops we know and that lambdas can derive. Since theres so super super superexponentially many calculations it can require, but only exponentially many funcs that are smaller than the bits to compress, it seems strong random which of them is sorted lowest and outputs that input to compress. That super super many funcs output the same thing. The smallest compression seems to depend on the order of a mix of many duplicate funcs for each bitstring of that size to compress, and exponentially many possible bitstrings it could output. I could therefore choose a bitstring, made of such parts of e and pi digits, which I know will compress very small, but without storing too huge a number of the digits of e and pi to lookup, P number of steps would answer probably some bigger func that returns the same, like quoting some of the bits, and thats not what makes np hard. subset sum... do any subset of these numbers sum to a given number. seems random kind of what 2 integers sum to since each digit is equally likely to be 0 or 1 almost. again thought id found something but the last parts are where shit doesnt fit. [link] [comments]  |
| Feedback for a simple Javascript state management library Posted: 20 Sep 2019 07:04 PM PDT I have been developing for the web for the last couple of years since I entered college and that's the first time that I tried to write a tool of my own, the library itself is pretty simple, regarding that I wrote the basic API in one afternoon, and the API is small enough to be wrapped in a simple Javascript app that requires state management, but I'm not sure of its utility and have been seeking feedback for the last three days to see what I can do better, if I can make it to be faster using different data structures, or maybe add a few more methods to make it more complete. The idea is that I have a state and a bunch of actions that must be done when certain piece of that state changes, I can update the state according to the previous state, and attach events to those pieces of state Here is the link if you wanna take a look https://github.com/Knevari/overfall [link] [comments]  |
| 3D Generative Design and Processing Posted: 20 Sep 2019 02:54 PM PDT Hey people! I'm wondering how I could write some scripts in the current Processig language to form generative 3D designs. I'd like to use these to create 3D prints as well. [link] [comments]  |
| Best computer science field to get into for someone with no IT background? Posted: 20 Sep 2019 09:30 AM PDT Hi all, as the title states I'm looking to get into IT. The issue is, every time I start trying to learn, I end up getting burnt out and quit altogether. Since realizing I wanted to get into it; I tried learning web development, cyber security, app development, and different python applications and nothing has stuck with me. I'm thinking of trying Oracle SQL next but I'm a bit hesitant. So for those of you from different backgrounds who are now successful in IT, what did you chose and how has it benefited you? Thanks. [link] [comments]  |
| Zooming into the world of computer vision applications Posted: 20 Sep 2019 04:42 AM PDT |
| Exploring .git folder of TensorFlow Posted: 20 Sep 2019 05:07 AM PDT |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Computer Science: Theory and Application. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment