From: kingfox	Date: October 27th, 2004 02:16 pm (UTC)		(Hard link)

0. We've got a Turing machine, and we're testing to see if the language is decidable. If it runs forever, we might say shit, it's not decidable. But there could be a different machine out there that would decide it.
1. Decidable means yes/no. Recognizable means yes/no/run forever. So if it does the former, it fits within the boundaries of the latter.
2. Some elements of it could run forever in the machine, which ain't part of being decidable.
3. Dovetailing, we can still have a machine enumerate it, luckily. We just ask about each element in order, letting it work on each for a step before moving on to the next, so we'll get something from everything as it comes in.
4. Take the enumerator, and see if it gets the result you're looking for. You'll get the result (yes), get a no on the result (no), or it'll run forever. That's recognizable, biatch.
5. L' is the compliment of L. What's in L ain't in L', and vice versa. So if we know whether or not something is in L definitively, we can say no on L' if it's in L, and yes on L' if it's not in L. Booya.
6. If we've got L and L' recognizing, then we know what's in L and what's not in L (because it'll be in L'). Therefore, as you might be gathering from the answer to the last one, they're both decidable too. You're always going to get one of them saying yes to something.
7. The compliment of the ACCEPT language ain't recognizable.

	From: redvector	Date: October 27th, 2004 02:23 pm (UTC)		(Hard link)

still. nothing.

I understand some of the concepts, but it's really monkey-talk to me or now.

	From: kingfox	Date: October 27th, 2004 02:35 pm (UTC)		(Hard link)

I understand. While preparing for class I took some of my old notes out of a notebook to use it again, and was amazed at some of the shit I had written. While I remembered a good deal of the computer science, most of the math and economics means little to me now.

	From: babingatron	Date: October 28th, 2004 01:21 pm (UTC)		(Hard link)
	This is normal

Sophisticated computing is monkey-talk to all of you humans.

	From: kingfox	Date: October 27th, 2004 02:23 pm (UTC)		(Hard link)

No shit!

	From: noelr	Date: October 27th, 2004 07:59 pm (UTC)		(Hard link)

yeah, what does she think she is? an American or something?

	From: kingfox	Date: October 27th, 2004 09:24 pm (UTC)		(Hard link)
	They were just following orders...

	From: noelr	Date: October 27th, 2004 10:39 pm (UTC)		(Hard link)

hahahahahaha, true, the religious nuts in charge now WOULD consider praying for God to kill you as a real threat.

	From: noelr	Date: October 28th, 2004 09:12 am (UTC)		(Hard link)

yes, but i was thinking more like all the other americans who are granted freedom of expression and whatnot. but like i below, to a totalitarian theocracy like the bush regime, praying that the leader dies could be construed as a legitimate threat.

	From: noelr	Date: October 28th, 2004 09:57 am (UTC)		(Hard link)

hahahaha... I just used the term because I liked the way the words rolled off together. Really I do know the difference between a country like Saudi Arabia or Taliban-run Afghanistan and a country that annually sends tons of arms and support to such a country.

So I wouldn't really call America a totalitarian theocracy. Evil empire, certainly. Global terrorists, certainly. A massive betrayal of enlightenment ideals, certainly. But not a totalitarian theocracy. That was just poetic license.

From: drunkinmunchkin	Date: October 29th, 2004 03:10 pm (UTC)		(Hard link)

:)

	From: kingfox	Date: October 28th, 2004 08:14 am (UTC)		(Hard link)
	Reducability!

You can feel the mathematical vibes oozing from the hand.

	From: kingfox	Date: October 28th, 2004 08:18 am (UTC)		(Hard link)

See link I made above. I have no problem with what was done. They were following orders. And unlike the Nazis or Stalin's orders, as some have compared it to, these weren't all that unreasonable. Sure, it was just a prayer, but whatever. And the best thing about all this uproar? She herself seems to have her head on relatively straight compared to the flame-fest going on in her journal. Quoting her original article:

Now, at this juncture, I am not planning on making any kind of formal complaint with the A.C.L.U., as some on my friendslist have suggested. I did not feel that my civil rights were violated by the visit, and I did not feel intimidated by the Secret Service agents. I have, however, contacted an attorney simply because I want to ensure that my rights are protected in the future, and because the Secret Service were less than clear about what exactly can be construed as a threat and what would be done with my FBI file and any medical records they requested. I am not making any efforts to contact the media, and I doubt that I will in the future.

I mean, jeez.