Pigeonhole sort? You'd need to make an array holding 2**128 values

The way I read it, there are 10^6 numbers, they aren't in the range 1 to 10^6

@cairdcoinheringaahing yeah it tickles me when those sorting algorithm visualisations just use a plain range

Link?

@user My point is that the fastest way to sort 10^6 integers is to generate a sorted list of 10^6 integers

I don't understand?

And the easiest way to generate that list is a range :P

i don't think that is technically a valid interpretation of "sort a list" :P

@user "what is the fastest way to sort 10^6 128-bit unsigned ints?" "have a list of sorted ints (aka a range)"

Oh, so you're just sorting different numbers instead of the given numbers

But the question never gave any numbers (or even, any method for generating them, such as "random")

Or assuming that the given numbers are all in consecutive order?

"What's the easiest way to kill someone?" "Step one: find a corpse. There is no step 2"

invalid, technically you have not killed someone

whereas if you assume a sorted list then applying a no-op technically is sorting it

@cairdcoinheringaahing Finding a corpse isn't too easy unless you're a mortician or smth

Jelly, 1 byte: ¹ (assumes the input is sorted) :P

Much easier to walk into traffic /s

@user That's what you think :P

...

@cairdcoinheringaahing I expected an empty Jelly program :P

@user Arguably, that isn't applying a no-op

the empty jelly program is a link that applies a no-op to its left argument

it does not contain a no-op atom, but the link itself is a no-op

@cairdcoinheringaahing :)

this is definitely by no means clear or really answerable but I wonder what is the smallest subset of letters such that any idea can still be represented in english

@pxeger Yes: gist.github.com/RedwolfPrograms/…

You might want to change the name and description first, I was too tired at the time to think of either lol

> // @author You(r mom)

> // @description Fix thing

> unftricksnosivhuis.user.js

One of the more elegant words in the english language, I must say

@hyper-neutrino English doesn't have enough letters to make this interesting :P

@RedwolfPrograms thanks!!

@hyper-neutrino surely you just need the word nand :)

represented by one letter

@hyper-neutrino At most 26, I suppose :P

Whoa, JS's Proxy is insane

I think I can use it to redefine arrays so that array[-1] gives you the last item

@user I was recently introduced to something called "Stoke". It's a program that attempts to find more optimal programs that are functionally equivalent for x86 stochastically.

I also find it strange that quantum physicists would think that it's reasonable that order can come from chaos, and by extension, that quantum physics would be producing ordered, observable, and repeatable processes from stochastic processes that have no predictable future state.

It's just completely untenable from my understanding. It is much safer to presume and believe as true that our ability to measure beyond a certain point has reached its limit.

Or, alternatively, that things happen so fast on the quantum level that it is beyond all possible measurement and therefore effectively non-deterministic or otherwise impossible to measure, but if we knew how "fast" those events occurred (and it's not implausible that we could determine them through mathematical models purely), then we could in fact be able to know exactly what the future state of any particular one thing in the universe would be under very specific and limited conditions.

@AMDG I don’t think it’s just “we can’t measure this”

Well whatever it is, it has to be orderly.

idk quantum physics, but I’m betting the physicists know what they’re talking about:P

@AMDG Why?

@AMDG I mean if you do something random enough times, whatever has a higher probability will still pretty consistently show up, right?

And for exponential speedups with some stuff, that's 100% worth it

(Idk much at all about quantum stuff though)

@user Because everything we see has a strict order that it obeys, so its foundation must necessarily be based in order and not pure randomness.

I'd question the first part of that

i am pretty sure it is proven that quantum mechanics involves true non-determinism

Perhaps this chaos is causing macroscopic stuff to also be random but we. Just can’t detect it

@AMDG ^

I mean theoretically every air particle in a room could fly over to the left side of the room, but that's never going to happen. Just because something involves small-scale randomness doesn't mean the result is totally unpredictable.

Ok, remind me again what non-determinism is exactly?

I just want to be sure.

@RedwolfPrograms I thought the probability of that is 0

There’s not a very big probability cloud for a particle, is there?

isn't the probability cloud of a particle infinitely large

eww, why does ATO scroll to the top of the page whenever I type?

but with very extremely small probability anywhere further than like microscopic range

@hyper-neutrino Oh

don't quote me on that though

@Neil it is probably because of the constantly updated query args

cc @pxeger ^

ypu know what, I’m gonna give up and say this is all a simulation by entities in a universe vastly different from us :P

@Neil It’s a feature, not a bug!

@AMDG Randomness/unpredictability (the opposite of something deterministic, where the future state would always be predictable if you know the current state)

Ok, and does that exclude arbitrary processes?

Arbitrary? That’s not random

Right, well arbitrary things are not always random. They're arbitrary.

But every arbitrary action cannot be predicted before-hand

I think it's been proven (but don't quote me on this) that radioactive decay is random/non-deterministic

@AMDG Arbitrary isjust a human thing

@AMDG If there was no randomness involved, and you knew the rules of the universe and its current state, you could predict the state at any time in the future

And the past, maybe

Wait no

Time's not reversible

@RedwolfPrograms Not the future

Why not?

Because your predicting computer would have to simulate itself too

isn't the collapse of a superposition into one state non-deterministic

Also, not enough atoms to simulate the entire universe iirc

@hyper-neutrino ye

@user Well this is assuming the computer's not part of the part of the universe you're simulating

Well time isn't reversible, but processes that are predictable we can trace to any previous point in time relative to a single state.

@RedwolfPrograms wut

Otherwise it would have to store its own state plus more...in its own state

This aint enders game lol

There is nothing outside the univers

@AMDG Not necessarily

Anyone here ever used bountysource.com ?

We can predict what 1 AND 0 is, but we can't predict what those two numbers were given only the output

@RedwolfPrograms How so? If I can describe a specific process as a function of time, and I say that t=681, I can determine what the state was at 680 and so on.

The collapse of a wavefunction is lossy iirc

@AMDG at a macroscopic level maybe

also the AND example redwolf gave lmao

But quantum mechanics is like “we random today”

@AMDG To be able to describe it as a function of time wasn't part of the initial assumptions

If it could be described that way, the universe would be deterministic regardless since you know ahead of time what the future state of anything is

@RedwolfPrograms Yes, we obviously cannot be certain which input set gave us a particular output when multiple inputs can give the same output.

Which is something that occurs often in the universe

In my understanding and small experience, I have observed everything to be traceable, however small or large a path to the origin a thing may have.

So even given the current state of the entire universe, a list of all of the rules of physics, a guarantee everything is deterministic, and a computer more powerful than the entire universe, you can never determine the state in the past

Specifically with regards to things that happen in the material universe.

Not spiritual things like mathematics.

Spiritual?!!

The whole point of math is to describe and model the universe, isn't it?

@RedwolfPrograms That's true only iff a function of time f(t) describing the current state of the universe that lacks no information about all parameters and variables describing a state of the universe at time t is still somehow lacking information because of the nature of the processes being somehow lossy, however...

... I observe that justice is in some way present ubiquitously in many things, often manifested as balance and sometimes formally described as balance, or conservation of energy/mass, etc.

Now if we observe that conservation of energy/mass is a universal principle, then that implies that the natural order of the universe is deterministic and predictable, and were it not for the fact that arbitrary processes bring about changes in the universe, we would probably be able to, but due to the nature of arbitrary processes, it is guaranteed that we cannot determine any point in the future or past, and only a point in the past by recording all past events.

> Now if we observe that conservation of energy/mass is a universal principle, that that implies that the natural order of the universe is deterministic and predictable

No it doesn't

@user Yes. My understanding is that all models are subjective, but the object is reality, and we may define truth as that which reflects reality, and falsehood as that which does not reflect reality, so although a thing may be subjective, it is true insofar as it reflects reality, but it is false insofar as it does not reflect reality.

Mathematics is a model of reality, in one way or another. So is natural language.

Math is not really "subjective" in any way, is it?

@RedwolfPrograms No?

It is because there is no perfect model of reality except reality itself.

A simpler way to see what I'm talking about is in the consideration of quantities.

There is no sufficient language consisting of symbols representing quantities that so perfectly models quantity that one can understand the quantity from the symbols themselves without being taught.

Even unary is insufficient to describe quantity.

I'm not aware of any well known theories saying that we can't know the rules that govern are universe, and if we know those rules we could theoretically create a perfect model of some part of the universe (though we couldn't use any real part of it as an example)

@AMDG I don't see what this has to do with anything honestly...of course there's no symbols that would automatically allow any human anywhere to know exactly what you mean

That doesn't mean you can't have a set of equations and rules that govern how the universe works

This seems like a bit off-topic for this chatroom

I never said there weren't. To say that we can't predict things about the universe would be unreasonable given the overwhelming evidence that proves the many theories and models that we have today.

Predicting how the universe works and exactly how a particle will behave are totally unrelated

@N3buchadnezzar I think the usual policy is that off-topic conversation is perfectly fine unless it disrupts on-topic discussion

But anyway, I have to go for a little while o/

@RedwolfPrograms I fail to see how, but I don't think that's really going to lead to useful conversation going in a physics-based topic direction since I can't really say that I know much more than what has already been stated in this regard--I haven't thoroughly studied quantum physics. On the contrary, I am happy to discuss other philosophical topic.s

Ah ok. Good bye!

@user Uh but to finish the thought on this: what I was getting at is that mathematics is a model, and models are subjective, and models can refer to things that are spiritual (such as knowledge) or material (such as physical and material properties of matter in the universe). Mathematics pertains to knowledge, so that makes it a spiritual thing in that sense.

In particular, knowledge of the natural order.

(Well, generally speaking at least)

Quickly, one more practical point I thought of: If there wasn't really good proof that quantum mechanics and non-deterministic stuff was correct, there wouldn't be billions of dollars being poured into quantum computing or TRNGs :p

@RedwolfPrograms Humanity will go to great lengths to answer the simplest of questions, so it really doesn't matter if the topic of choice be quantum mechanics and non-determinism, or something else, if I have to have a response to that at all, but what you stated here isn't very strong evidence of the veritability of these things; it's not a terrible heuristic, though :)

There's billions of dollars also spent on R&D for new products for companies, governments, and militaries. It's more likely that the motivation behind quantum computing and most scientific research today is business-oriented, rather than to seek the truth, or worse, for the sake of pride and vainglory. I could be wrong, but my knowledge of human nature suggests otherwise.

@AMDG maths is not a model of reality. unlike physics, it does not rely on experimentation to reject a theory or provide supporting evidence for it. it relies only on logical rules of deduction and a small selection of axioms, and is unconcerned with whether their consequences agree with observations in the real world or not.

It is a model of reality insofar as knowledge is a part of reality.

I should specify: by reality, I mean all of what is material and immaterial, fixed or arbitrary, deterministic or non-deterministic.

Reality is objective and consists of the objective, but that same reality can be understood in a virtually indefinite number of ways, and those ways I refer to and understand to be models, and that is the relationship of the subjective to the objective in general.

And then if we're still trying to be more formal about it, error is the set of things that do not perfectly correspond 1:1 in all aspects with some object of reality.

For example, "half-truths" so-called would belong in the set of errors as well.

@AMDG Of course it's business oriented, and anyone who wants profits isn't going to go so far as to actually build a quantum computer if they don't think the concept could actually work :p

:)

@user Correction: Children of the Mind

That was a terrible book, what a letdown

How so?

The whole aiua thing just didn't make any sense. It was too spiritual and stuff

It was just different from Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead