wooooooosh. :)

It's much more... sophisticated!


I Know it's not 3-D!

If I recall correctly, it also had a plaque that stated "Placed by the society of historical sticklers", or something to that effect.

#1 result is the parent comment. Fail.

Additional Claims:

6. A plurality of exclamation marks containing sequences of non-exclamation mark printable characters
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the sequence of characters represent a mathematical function
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the mathematical function evaluates to a number that, when expressed in decimal form, is "1"

What if the puppies know the location of the nukes? Jack Bauer says: "We don't have time for this!"

hmm. for me, If I just scroll down to the bottom of the page, the actual answer is there. I believe this is something of an open secret.

Then again, the given 'expert' answers are often no better than other random forum results.

A minor nitpick, that still is relevant. Privacy also has a second definition, especially historically: the right to seclusion.

In the USA, at least, some 83% self-report as being religious.

Honestly, at that point, I would say the 'organized religion - crime' connection falls under one of Slashdot's favorite lines 'Correlation does not imply Causation'

I'm sure people were killing each other for greed, or idiotic ideological reasons, long before it was written in stone, too.

I'd be most interested if someone did a study comparing crime rates across different religious demographics - including the atheist and agnostic. I propose that it would end up mostly flat

The parent's point, though, is that the halting problem, and the diagonalization argument, are inherently infinite.

If you have a finite amount of memory, say, n bits, then there is a finite number of states the memory can be in (2^n).

No matter what the architecture of the processor, you can generalize it as something which reads the current state of memory, and other inputs, and produces a new state of memory (and possibly output).

Ignoring for a moment the infinite possibilities one gets with peripheral input, we address your example, that of a fractal. Given that this should take place entirely in memory, we can safely ignore input. If you have finite memory, there are only a finite number of states the memory can be in. furthermore, because we are ignoring user input, and are using a deterministic processor, any given state of memory will always lead to a certain next state of memory.

As a process runs, it will either
a) halt
or
b) visit a state it has already visited.

Simple proof: you have a state machine with n possible states. (in a binary computer with finite memory of m bits, 2^m = n). iterate it n+1 times.
If it hasn't halted within this time, it MUST have visited one state more than once (pigeonhole principle).

Cantor's argument is counterintutive, but true, as are the conclusions drawn about computability and the halting problem. The thing to realize, though, is that they apply to infinite sets.

In finite sets, brute force trumps.

hehe

Ghostbusters!

That confused me at first, too. I believe the parent is referring just to prime numbers in base 2.

I suppose you've never heard the 4th stanza to the anthem.

http://www.thenationalanthemproject.org/lyrics.html

FTFA: