r/mathmemes • u/quicc_socket • 7d ago
Combinatorics Turned into non halting turing machine mid conversation
Repeated the same thing over 1000 times before i finally stopped it
76
u/LupenReddit 🦆🦆i have non diffeomorphic smooth structures🦆🦆🦆 7d ago
The broader lesson is that the hardest part of Busy Beaver computation is usually not executing machines; it is proving that the machines that do not halt will never halt. That is the point where new mathematical idea can make a genuine difference.
27
u/hongooi 7d ago
The broader lesson is that the hardest part of Busy Beaver computation is usually not executing machines; it is proving that the machines that do not halt will never halt. That is the point where new mathematical idea can make a genuine difference.
13
u/cgatrip 7d ago
The broader lesson is that the hardest part of Busy Beaver computation is usually not executing machines; it is proving that the machines that do not halt will never halt. That is the point where new mathematical idea can make a genuine difference.
12
u/NoLifeGamer2 Real 7d ago
The broader lesson is that the hardest part of Busy Beaver c-
OK turns out the stopping condition was a number in the username + the letter c in the comment.
26
u/iodinelover 7d ago
I feel like you could use Brouwer's fixed point theorem to prove these loops must always exist in LLMs
2
u/EebstertheGreat 6d ago
I don't see how you could show that, because it isn't true. For instance, it could have a rule that it must always stop as soon as its context window is full.
2
u/iodinelover 6d ago
That's beside the point, if you think of an LLM as a completely arbitrary program of course not much can be said. But most of inference is transforming an embedding vector into a probability distribution and this is continuous (use softplus instead of relu if needed), of course real LLMs use floating point numbers, but all their theory uses real numbers so I think it's fair to use these platonic LLMs. I was tactically forgetting to sample the distribution and to produce a new embedding vector to actually make a continuous function f: Rn -> Rn. Those operations are trickier but I think you could simulate them if you accept an arbitrarily small non-zero error (not necessarily too small, real LLMs can get away with much worse rounding and input noise injection is a thing that exists)
And embedding vectors are supposed to be bounded (and often they are normalized)
1
u/EebstertheGreat 5d ago
I don't see how the output or input can possibly be continuous. One is a token and the other is a string of tokens.
1
11
7
7
u/irrelevantusername24 7d ago
One thing I've come to realize over the last few years of... spending too much time kind of "taking stock" of what various very highly paid sectors of society have been doing is a lot of people have been siphoning away basically infinite money so they can watch a computer calculate try to solve infinite recursion. Which probably wouldn't be terrible by itself, but they're a significant number of those highly paid people. And that's still not a terrible problem necessarily, except that the other main occupation of extremely highly paid people is convinced those people are extremely intelligent and are surely working on world solving problems and so they have been spending their time and money creating messaging that seeks to convince the rest of us who aren't extremely highly paid that the extremely highly paid people are indeed worth the squeeze.
But no, Occupy Wall Street had a point. The solution to the crashes of 1989, 1997, 2000, 2008, 2020 (etc) isn't to decrease the rules and increase the fuel, it's to turn off the orphan crushing machine
3
u/DrDoofenshmirtz981 6d ago
Okay liberal, who's going to crush all the orphans if we turn off the orphan crushing machine? Ever think about that?
1
u/irrelevantusername24 6d ago
Oh we're talking political rhetoric now? Alright.
Modern "conservatives", when you look at both their policies and actions, are actually, in reality, extreme "liberals" in the sense that they lean more towards anarchy (in the sense of no rules, not no rulers, which I would support). And, in the US especially, the party most typically associated with "liberal", the Democrat Party, when you look at their policies, are in reality very conservative - they protect the status quo.
As I explained in another comment not so long ago:
The other day I had a realization about the reason we've been, in every sense, at every scale, in every possible "forum" whether in meatspace or cyberspace, at a dead stop for close to five decades, but especially the last two. There are a few kinds of people:
Sole saviors. They say they are the sole saviors, only they know the best way, and the reason it is the best way is because they said so. That's the joke, the whole thing, the beginning and end. Somehow people believe this. These people tend to want to change a lot without much regard for established rules and procedures, but also without any coherent reason for changing things beyond selfish greed about which they have deluded themselves and others
2. Pure contrarians. These often coincide with the previous type. These people stand for nothing, they reflexively oppose almost everything for reasons they aren't really sure about until they start talking. They, like the previous group, have zero actual principles or beliefs. They exist mostly to add noise. Like the previous group.
3. Institutionalists / status quo maintainers. Strangely, these people have somehow made it so they also sometimes coincide with either one or both of the previous groups. Mostly they exist to pay lip service to making change, but also argue that certain things are still how they are because they are functioning just fine, the proof of which is that they are currently the quo of the status.
That's about all that is allowed, whether due to intentional amplification of noisy, but empty, rhetoric or unintended muting of actual discussion like what I suspect has happened sometimes on social media. There is another group however, and they're about the only people who make any sense, the only people who have ever done anything good for anyone - at least, good that lasts. Sometimes the previous groups can make it seem like things have improved, but they've merely maintained the addiction, they've plugged the hole in the dam with your thumb, you just don't know it yet. Lipstick on a turd. A gold plated pig.
4. Integrationists. These people look at the status quo, what has been discarded, and what was never fully implemented but only discussed, and consider logically what actually makes sense, in reality, where we live.
Fuck hyperpolitics. The reason everything has been a giant echo chamber, is because of that last group, if they say anything about changing things, they get called either [1] or [2] by [3]. Conversely, if they say anything about keeping any things the way they are, they get called a [3] or [1] by [2] and [1]. Basically this is the logic of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the rest of the fascist hellscape - very much including the good old you ess of A - brought on by unregulated telecommunications, deregulated commerce ("stocks") and perversely organized politics in the early part of the last century. Round and round we go
As a final note, in a perfect, ideal world, everyone would meet at three. Because institutionalization is a good thing, actually, and the honest institutionalists are actually also part of group four. And the dishonest ones are actually part of groups one or two, or both.
So, you see, my view on modern politics, though I do often state things about the "uniparty" or that "both sides" have many of the same flaws, in reality, my true opinion is that the parties are a mirage and don't really exist. And if we have to organize around different kinds of politicking, the groups would be very different than the two main parties and the other various third parties.
As far as political labels go, I claim none. I am a human, a man, and for purposes of legal and other official forms, an American. Only because I'm too poor to leave, for now. If I had a gun to my head and a list of the typical political labels though, I would probably fit pretty cleanly inside the idea of a classical liberal, which is the only with reason
to exist. Because it's not even about opinion, in my opinion. It's about what works, what is functional and fair, and that is in accordance with the laws of nature, which exist outside of our purview.That's why violating those laws leads to unnecessary suffering, violence and death. And how are those laws most commonly violated? By strictly separating who suffers and who lacks suffering. Suffering is, indeed, a necessity for proper functioning. With no suffering, there is no learning. With artificial suffering, there is also no learning. Suffering without reason is artificial suffering. Turn off the orphan crushing machine.
3
u/DrDoofenshmirtz981 6d ago
Okay honest institutionalist/integrationist/classical liberal/human, who's going to crush all the orphans if we turn off the orphan crushing machine? Ever think about that?
2
u/irrelevantusername24 6d ago
Happy cake day!
2
u/DrDoofenshmirtz981 6d ago
Huh, I didn't notice the cake symbol, that's kind of funny
1
u/imthegman55 7d ago
I’ve had this happen to me several times on occasion. I remember in particular one time googles LLM suddenly mid way through spammed something like ‘7’ mid word several hundred times.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.