You can now find domain
January 15, 2026 at 5:19 AM
You can now find domain
The library will become the interpreter ;) and then bootstrap from there! Or that’s my plan anyway
January 14, 2026 at 2:03 AM
The library will become the interpreter ;) and then bootstrap from there! Or that’s my plan anyway
Yes but other way! Hurtboxes take the damage
December 22, 2025 at 5:42 AM
Yes but other way! Hurtboxes take the damage
All hurtboxes are hitboxes, but not all hitboxes are hurtboxes.
Hurtboxes receive damage
Hurtboxes receive damage
December 22, 2025 at 5:41 AM
All hurtboxes are hitboxes, but not all hitboxes are hurtboxes.
Hurtboxes receive damage
Hurtboxes receive damage
Someone will write a generalized NtoN+1 based on induction and we’ll solve Python
December 15, 2025 at 4:39 AM
Someone will write a generalized NtoN+1 based on induction and we’ll solve Python
One more mystery down, hopefully not much more than one to go..
September 19, 2025 at 10:49 PM
One more mystery down, hopefully not much more than one to go..
Aha, I got it :) you can perform such a shift arithmetically! An interesting thing is that right-shifting a transfinite expression reduces its order, so this operation is a rightshift on finites, but a rightshift plus a compensation on transfinites, to make up for the order decrement
September 19, 2025 at 10:48 PM
Aha, I got it :) you can perform such a shift arithmetically! An interesting thing is that right-shifting a transfinite expression reduces its order, so this operation is a rightshift on finites, but a rightshift plus a compensation on transfinites, to make up for the order decrement
It takes a lot of mental effort to consider but it doesn’t seem insurmountable either. You just have to preserve
1. Order (ordinality)
2. Sequence of cardinalities under ceiling division
I know that none of this makes sense without context but oh well
1. Order (ordinality)
2. Sequence of cardinalities under ceiling division
I know that none of this makes sense without context but oh well
September 17, 2025 at 2:55 AM
It takes a lot of mental effort to consider but it doesn’t seem insurmountable either. You just have to preserve
1. Order (ordinality)
2. Sequence of cardinalities under ceiling division
I know that none of this makes sense without context but oh well
1. Order (ordinality)
2. Sequence of cardinalities under ceiling division
I know that none of this makes sense without context but oh well
Take a sample of large, randomly generated Python programs with arbitrarily named variables, and translate them to Go, and back
Now do the same with English and Spanish
The Python-Go sample is practically guaranteed to contain more errors, because, like you said, it’s testable
Now do the same with English and Spanish
The Python-Go sample is practically guaranteed to contain more errors, because, like you said, it’s testable
July 21, 2025 at 8:39 PM
Take a sample of large, randomly generated Python programs with arbitrarily named variables, and translate them to Go, and back
Now do the same with English and Spanish
The Python-Go sample is practically guaranteed to contain more errors, because, like you said, it’s testable
Now do the same with English and Spanish
The Python-Go sample is practically guaranteed to contain more errors, because, like you said, it’s testable
You’re of course correct that “yeet the doggo” will never be unambiguous, but that’s not a disadvantage for an LLM, it’s an advantage!
“Yeet the doggo” is error tolerant. Doggo could be replaced by a number of words
“a+b” is not error-tolerant at all
“Yeet the doggo” is error tolerant. Doggo could be replaced by a number of words
“a+b” is not error-tolerant at all
July 21, 2025 at 8:37 PM
You’re of course correct that “yeet the doggo” will never be unambiguous, but that’s not a disadvantage for an LLM, it’s an advantage!
“Yeet the doggo” is error tolerant. Doggo could be replaced by a number of words
“a+b” is not error-tolerant at all
“Yeet the doggo” is error tolerant. Doggo could be replaced by a number of words
“a+b” is not error-tolerant at all
I’m trying to illustrate the difference between natural and programming languages.
Obviously, a+b must have one meaning or the Python interpreter wouldn’t know what to do. All valid Python programs are unambiguous.
“a+b” in a vacuum is NOT a valid Python program. It gives an error
Obviously, a+b must have one meaning or the Python interpreter wouldn’t know what to do. All valid Python programs are unambiguous.
“a+b” in a vacuum is NOT a valid Python program. It gives an error
July 21, 2025 at 8:35 PM
I’m trying to illustrate the difference between natural and programming languages.
Obviously, a+b must have one meaning or the Python interpreter wouldn’t know what to do. All valid Python programs are unambiguous.
“a+b” in a vacuum is NOT a valid Python program. It gives an error
Obviously, a+b must have one meaning or the Python interpreter wouldn’t know what to do. All valid Python programs are unambiguous.
“a+b” in a vacuum is NOT a valid Python program. It gives an error
That’s like saying “foo” can mean literally anything because you can set it equal to whatever you want. Still, it only ever means one thing at a time.
From our perspective, we don’t know whether or not “a+b” is overloaded. But from the interpreter’s perspective, the answer is a strict yes or no
From our perspective, we don’t know whether or not “a+b” is overloaded. But from the interpreter’s perspective, the answer is a strict yes or no
July 21, 2025 at 6:46 PM
That’s like saying “foo” can mean literally anything because you can set it equal to whatever you want. Still, it only ever means one thing at a time.
From our perspective, we don’t know whether or not “a+b” is overloaded. But from the interpreter’s perspective, the answer is a strict yes or no
From our perspective, we don’t know whether or not “a+b” is overloaded. But from the interpreter’s perspective, the answer is a strict yes or no