7200+ entries in 0.005s
mircea_popescu: therefore, the previous class of specialist egg layers are now repurposed into a doubling of the food searcher contingent.
mircea_popescu: and, lest the "women's rights an' freedoms" morons get irritated -- no, the "not anymore" re marriage and the outlay above is not some kind of "
progress". it is the simple economical result of the value of new children reaching ~0 and the probability of success also reaching ~0 : thus
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, depends if you look from inside or from outside. from outside, kim is quite the perfect model.
mircea_popescu: "of all the merchants there lie within this generation of 12 yo boys, 3/4 will die before being rich" "i intend to marry one of the rest. or three."
mircea_popescu: the whole human race (and not exceptionally, most mammals also) is, essentialyl, an exercise in the exploitation of liar distribution like here discussed
mircea_popescu: just because "it is random", doesn't mean 2 can't happen.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, consider : 1. X is a bad strategy (true) ; 2. exploiting winners of X is a good strategy (true).
☟︎ mircea_popescu: from the fact that "it is improductive, economically, to play the lottery" it does NOT follow that "it is a bad strategy, my daughter, to marry the winners"
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, all lottery players except the winner are fucked in the head.
mircea_popescu: this is proven by the fact that when you go to p-numbers shop and get numbers, what you get are... numbers.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, "uniform distributions" are not guaranteed to be what you get. when you go to milk shop and order milk, you get milk on the strength of ~human industry~, NOT on the strength of "the meanings of abstracts".
mircea_popescu: from "numbers on the interval 1, n have property p with probability 3/4"it does NOT follow that "these five numbers i picked contain 3.75 numbers wirth property p"
mircea_popescu: otherwise, by naive extension of daily experience, items such a geode (or even, an ore vein) are "not possible"
mircea_popescu: and ~this~ is the core of my argument -- not that probability of 1, nor that "forever". merely that for the one spot you happen to look at.
mircea_popescu: devil cares about the thought of man. which is neither.
mircea_popescu: devil dun' care about probability 1, or about "infinitely long trials".
mircea_popescu: if we were even close to space saturation, itr wouldn't be called crypto, it'd be called social security numbers.
mircea_popescu: yes, in theory. in practice, you have a finite set out of a necessarily large space -- as part and parcel of what cryptography IS.
mircea_popescu: you can not, on the basis of a 0% sample, to say anything avbout how the sample fits in the 100% it came from.
mircea_popescu: understand : there are no less than 2^4096 numbers in 4096 bits. if you take say 32 numbers out of this, that is, 2^5, you have thereby avoided 2^4091 numbers from the original set, which is to say, 100% to any practical apperoximation.
mircea_popescu: "from actual rng per [naive interpretation] of m-r claims", but w/e.
mircea_popescu: BingoBoingo, i expect sometime before 2022 ima switch to buying azn cars. what can you do, germans are morons now.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: BingoBoingo, fortunately their tower of shit depends on crap like having gps in the car.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, there's a difference between "show x can't be done" and "show how to do x"
mircea_popescu: pretty sure more like a few mn are known, obtained as you say.\
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, they're not equally distributed. here's what i propose : take a rng run, ent ; then take out all carmichael numbers from it, run ent. then see if you can tell which is which.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, i'd say you found the first meaningful patch to be put on the fg tree.
mircea_popescu: imo item should be baked anyways, as a tmsr.crypto model object.
mircea_popescu: being pretty much the ~only test anyone here in any substantial sense gives a shit about.
mircea_popescu: but yes, the relation you unearth is sound. the problem or set thereof i started discussing is exactly homomorphic to "well, we have no proper rng tests, "ou'll have to take the girl by the nose, count, and break out the abacuses.")
mircea_popescu: yes, "you do not even know what a working rng mathematically means"
mircea_popescu: your rng working or not is aside the point ; we're discussing here random numbers as a mathematical abstraction, we're not even counting "well, your set of 4, 4, 4, 4 is not exactly an implementation of that abstraction"
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, and this SHOULD STAY THAT WAY, is one thing i'm saying. for the above reasoning.
mircea_popescu: afgain : just because you've proven that 3/4 numbers in the interval 1, n have property p, you have not shown ANYTHING about how many numbers have the property p in some other interval q, q+k.
mircea_popescu: argument reduces to "you do not know what random means".
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, i dun see how works either! but what i'm saying is that you don't have ~proof~ it doesn't!
mircea_popescu: just because "every other human is female" does not mean there's 3 males in my harem.
mircea_popescu: statistical means some things, we do not know how it diverges once we narrow intervals.
mircea_popescu: i do buy it, but it is ~statistical~, and it applies for 1, n and NOT for n, n+k
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, the problem's not necessarily stated as you state it. i am not capable to know in advance WHAT attack will have to be faced.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, for all you know, all numbers between n and n+k are liars for all primes larger than 2^l
mircea_popescu: i do not dispute that the exercise is not worth doing, unless one has a girl nose fetish. nevertheless, worth doing is a different consideration from true.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: there, again there is not a mathematical proof to permit you to say -- if i say "the largest contiguous set of consecutive liars before number n will contain k such liars where k = n divided by alf's gf's nosehair count" there's no formulaic approach you can fall back on. you'll have to take the girl by the nose, count, and break out the abacuses.
mircea_popescu: the bound presumes a flat spectrum rng and properties of large sets of random numbers that ~have not been proven~, though they are experimentally VERY reliable.
mircea_popescu: or in other words : "random" is not "jolly joker of do what i mean".
☟︎ mircea_popescu: this is not what i'd call "crackpottery". for all you know there IS a manner to construct "~always lied about by random witnesses" prime candidates.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, as to your earlier question : not such a large degree of crackpottery needed. consider that if i affirm today that a) given a list of however many ~randomly chosen~ witnesses from (1,n) b) the number k = x^2 + q x + p is going to be falsely identified as a prime number while n = q ^ 2 + p ^ 3, there is c) nothing you can practically do to give me the lie other than ~actually construct such numbers and check~.
mircea_popescu: right. we're well persuaded, and i daresay well persuasive.
mircea_popescu: it is factually true that the liar occurence in (1, n) is ~1/3 ; i don't know how to evaluate the occurence in (n, n+k). it could be 1/3^2 or 1/3 ^ k or 1/3 ^ 1/k^16 or whatever the fuck else.
mircea_popescu: in any case, it seems to me that the a witnesses MUST be generated as rng(0, 2^4096) rather than rng (2^4095, 2^4096).
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, possibly a is actually significantly weaker than b. i dunno, intuitively i'd readily agree with you, but the fact is ~we don't know~.
mircea_popescu: atm i am unaware how one would answer this ; but if any brins are in the audience by all means, even an unsuccessful ~meaningful~ attempt at tackling this question of our times is liable to make new math.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: type a has the disadvantage that possibly we end up with worse witnesses, and type b has the disadvantage that possibly lists of n to which our known list of candidate witnesses is blind to may be also constructed in advance.
mircea_popescu: the ~only question that actually needs an answer is whether a) a selection of n random numbers b bits long made every time a candidate prime is checked for compositeness or b) a pre-given list of prime numbers b bits long among which n are randomly picked each time a candidate prime is checked for compositeness is a better approach towards checking a candidate prime for compositeness.
mircea_popescu: thinkin gmore about this whole witness and liar discussion :
mircea_popescu: diana_coman, nice find, definitely the source of my memory.
mircea_popescu: "Digg Inc., a social-media pioneer once valued at more than $160 million, is selling for the deeply discounted price of about $500,000, three people familiar with the matter said." << back in
2012.
mircea_popescu: "say mp, who was your favourite american ?" "dora dufran"
mircea_popescu: all part of work to make silent subs ; even the exhaust gets bottled.
mircea_popescu: afaik it's internally organized much like the "car battery" : a buncha half-liter cells inside a lined tank
mircea_popescu: the engines won't go very far on it (in no small part because it';s almost never taken to ~water density, ie, 800 or so atmospheres) ; but there's still a lot of air that can be fit in some not-so-huge tanks.