Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Think back to your geometry class. Mathematical geometry works with infinitely small points and has infinite precision.

I suspect that the proof is that geometry is uncomputable.




That seems to be the same thing as representing sqrt(2) as sqrt(2).


Yes, sort of.

You can "compute" sqrt(2) by the geometric construction of a unit square and "drawing" the diagonal.

You cannot do it physically, because marks on paper are not geometric primitives: points are not 0-dimensional; when drawn with a pencil, they have a physical size. A line on paper is not 1-dimensional, etc. But on the other hand, all physical computers are actually equivalent to finite state machines: they don't have infinite (or, unbounded) storage.

I'm halfway through the video, and they are discussing this: the fundamental limit of Turing machines, etc., is that they cannot do an infinite (or unbounded) amount of work in a finite number of steps. As a result, geometric constructions a la Euclid are not computable.


Yes, exactly my point.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: