Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

sligocki.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#71

Post by lisper »

vlovich123 wrote: post #68
lisper wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tenure And how do you think that gets decided? > those who get cited the most And how do you get cited without first getting published in a peer-reviewed publication? > whoever manages to shmooze their way onto the grant review board Do you think it's possible to do that without a publication record? > whoever has been doing “good” work in a space As decided by whom? The point is that the current system is based on…

> And how do you think that gets decided? Tenure precedes peer review afaik which I think pretty obviously negates this question - humans established tenure somehow so whatever that mechanism was. Peer review as a concept is quite old (17th century) and what these guys did on discord is peer review and collaboration. I’m assuming you’re just using shorthand to refer to journal peer review which is the more recent phe…

> Tenure precedes peer review afaik

Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review.

> Citations exist independently of peer review

To cite something there has to be something to cite. It is of course possible to cite a non-peer-reviewed publication, but in academia this is heavily frowned upon. Non-peer-reviewed is generally considered synonymous with crackpottery.

> Pick 10 random bureaucrats

I meant do you think it's possible to "shmooze [your] way onto the grant review board" without a publication record in the real world, not some counterfactual world where you have stacked the deck.

> the replication crises has many origins and isn’t just the fault of peer reviews

I didn't say it was just the fault of peer review. What I said was that peer review was "probably in no small measure responsible for [the] replication crises", and I stand by that.

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#72

Post by casercaramel144 »

I was curious as to how it works, so I implemented here: turingmachine.io/?import-gist=c862f28918f3d889f964797694d28fcc

If you run it for a bit you see what's going on, State B turns 0's into 2's and 1's into 1's transitioning to C and state C turns 3 -> 2's and transitions to A. So you just iteratively lengthen your run of 3's exponentially since it requires a full pass through all the 3's to fix a 2->1.

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#73

Post by JadeNB »

lisper wrote: post #71
vlovich123 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And how do you think that gets decided? Tenure precedes peer review afaik which I think pretty obviously negates this question - humans established tenure somehow so whatever that mechanism was. Peer review as a concept is quite old (17th century) and what these guys did on discord is peer review and collaboration. I’m assuming you’re just using shorthand to refer to journal peer review which is the more recent phe…

> Tenure precedes peer review afaik Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review. > Citations exist independently of peer review To cite something there has to be something to cite. It is of course possible to cite a non-peer-reviewed publication, but in academia this is heavily frowned upon. Non-peer-reviewed is generally considered synonymous with crackpottery. > Pick 10 r…

> > Tenure precedes peer review afaik

> Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review.

I'm pretty sure your parent meant that the concept of tenure precedes the concept of peer review. However, this too seems to be false, according to the repository of truth, Wikipedia, which says that:

> The first record of an editorial pre-publication peer-review is from 1665 by Henry Oldenburg, the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at the Royal Society of London.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review) but:

> Tenure was introduced into American universities in the early 1900s in part to prevent the arbitrary dismissal of faculty members who expressed unpopular views.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure).

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#74

Post by sligocki »

tromp wrote: post #10

The new BB(3,4) record holder is 0 1 2 3 A 1RB 3LB 1RZ 2RA B 2LC 3RB 1LC 2RA C 3RB 1LB 3LC 2RC with the triple (t',d, s') in row s column t specifying the transition from state s with symbol t under the tape head. the machine overwrites symbol t with t', moves the tape Left/Right according to direction d, and changes state from s to s', halting if s'==Z. This is 3*4*log2(4*2*log2(4+1)) or about 64 bits of information…

Counting the number of distinct TMs is not a simple task. The way you count it is the most broad (the count of all tables of values where each cell can have any (symbol, direction, state) combination). But this is a significant overcount of the bits needed to describe an arbitrary TM. for the BB(3, 4) case, there are only about 600B distinct TMs using the Tree Normal Form aka Brady's algorithm (https://nickdrozd.github.io/2022/01/14/bradys-algorithm.html) which comes out to <40 bits.

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#75

Post by lisper »

JadeNB wrote: post #73
lisper wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tenure precedes peer review afaik Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review. > Citations exist independently of peer review To cite something there has to be something to cite. It is of course possible to cite a non-peer-reviewed publication, but in academia this is heavily frowned upon. Non-peer-reviewed is generally considered synonymous with crackpottery. > Pick 10 r…

> > Tenure precedes peer review afaik > Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review. I'm pretty sure your parent meant that the concept of tenure precedes the concept of peer review. However, this too seems to be false, according to the repository of truth, Wikipedia, which says that: > The first record of an editorial pre-publication peer-review is from 1665 by Henry Olden…

> I'm pretty sure your parent meant that the concept of tenure precedes the concept of peer review.

Even if that were true, what does the historical development of these institutions have to do with the claim that contemporary peer review is responsible for the contemporary replication crisis?

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#76

Post by tromp »

sligocki wrote: post #74
tromp wrote: post #10

The new BB(3,4) record holder is 0 1 2 3 A 1RB 3LB 1RZ 2RA B 2LC 3RB 1LC 2RA C 3RB 1LB 3LC 2RC with the triple (t',d, s') in row s column t specifying the transition from state s with symbol t under the tape head. the machine overwrites symbol t with t', moves the tape Left/Right according to direction d, and changes state from s to s', halting if s'==Z. This is 3*4*log2(4*2*log2(4+1)) or about 64 bits of information…

Counting the number of distinct TMs is not a simple task. The way you count it is the most broad (the count of all tables of values where each cell can have any (symbol, direction, state) combination). But this is a significant overcount of the bits needed to describe an arbitrary TM. for the BB(3, 4) case, there are only about 600B distinct TMs using the Tree Normal Form aka Brady's algorithm ( https://nickdrozd.git…

Similarly, 2^n would be a huge overcount of the number of n-bit closed terms, which is given by OEIS sequence A114852 [1]. There are 36140122614 ~ 2^35 closed terms of size 49 bits (length of a straightforward self-delimiting encoding). So in that sense it's still a smaller lambda term computing an incomprehensibly larger output.

[1] https://oeis.org/A114852

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#77

Post by vlovich123 »

lisper wrote: post #75
JadeNB wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > Tenure precedes peer review afaik > Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review. I'm pretty sure your parent meant that the concept of tenure precedes the concept of peer review. However, this too seems to be false, according to the repository of truth, Wikipedia, which says that: > The first record of an editorial pre-publication peer-review is from 1665 by Henry Olden…

> I'm pretty sure your parent meant that the concept of tenure precedes the concept of peer review. Even if that were true, what does the historical development of these institutions have to do with the claim that contemporary peer review is responsible for the contemporary replication crisis?

Yeah I obviously am taking about the peer reviewed journal not peer review as a concept (which is how this discussion started). ~~But it does look like tenure is after journals not before.~~ Correction: peer review as we know of began in the mid 1970s, so tenure precedes the modern peer review system.

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#78

Post by vlovich123 »

lisper wrote: post #71
vlovich123 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And how do you think that gets decided? Tenure precedes peer review afaik which I think pretty obviously negates this question - humans established tenure somehow so whatever that mechanism was. Peer review as a concept is quite old (17th century) and what these guys did on discord is peer review and collaboration. I’m assuming you’re just using shorthand to refer to journal peer review which is the more recent phe…

> Tenure precedes peer review afaik Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review. > Citations exist independently of peer review To cite something there has to be something to cite. It is of course possible to cite a non-peer-reviewed publication, but in academia this is heavily frowned upon. Non-peer-reviewed is generally considered synonymous with crackpottery. > Pick 10 r…

Ok, so what you seem to have said in this thread is that the system today is a huge contributor to the replication crisis but any suggestion that things could be done differently is met with an endless barrage of questions and resistance that no, it had to be done this way. So your complaint is that there’s a system at all instead of anarchy? Really not sure what point you’re trying to make.

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#79

Post by tux3 »

casercaramel144 wrote: post #72

I was curious as to how it works, so I implemented here: turingmachine.io/?import-gist=c862f28918f3d889f964797694d28fcc If you run it for a bit you see what's going on, State B turns 0's into 2's and 1's into 1's transitioning to C and state C turns 3 -> 2's and transitions to A. So you just iteratively lengthen your run of 3's exponentially since it requires a full pass through all the 3's to fix a 2->1.

It's fairly easy to make a turing machine that goes exponential and blows up forever.

But the really tricky part to understand is why it eventually stops. After an unimaginably high number of steps.

Re: BB(3, 4) > Ack(14)

#80

Post by lisper »

vlovich123 wrote: post #78
lisper wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tenure precedes peer review afaik Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review. > Citations exist independently of peer review To cite something there has to be something to cite. It is of course possible to cite a non-peer-reviewed publication, but in academia this is heavily frowned upon. Non-peer-reviewed is generally considered synonymous with crackpottery. > Pick 10 r…

Ok, so what you seem to have said in this thread is that the system today is a huge contributor to the replication crisis but any suggestion that things could be done differently is met with an endless barrage of questions and resistance that no, it had to be done this way. So your complaint is that there’s a system at all instead of anarchy? Really not sure what point you’re trying to make.

Maybe re-reading my original comment will help clarify: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40456188
Post reply on HN