its short answer is "yes, and in some dimensions, more overtly than cats"
it points to parrot social behavior, long term memory, capacity for delayed gratification, capacity for deception, and ability to adjust vocalizations to different listeners as evidence, among other things
falls afoul of "other body part," but (and I hate myself for noticing this) apparently bestiality is still on the menu
into the adult section with every potty training book, I guess
From some of the first pilots to the engineers who put Americans in space — the legacy of these Black pioneers is inseparable from aviation and aerospace itself. They opened the skies for everyone.
Pixel the floofy tabbico hangs her face over the edge of the duvet as she purrs on yr narrator's chest
purr baby is here to say hi
or to get even more literal-brained about it: ascii, latin-1, cjk, utf-8, utf-16
prepositions and articles catching strays
is that the bird university one? I haven't played it yet but everything I hear about it sounds iconic
I apologize, that was glib of me
but my position remains: the past-price problem as stated is a subset selection problem with additive weights and additive values under a budget constraint
that's just the knapsack problem under relabeling
if that's too informal, why?
I don't know that it really has any practical applications other than encouraging a healthy skepticism of the emh, but that's practical enough for me
... are you really saying you think isomorphism and homeomorphism are meaningless?
needless to say, the yoneda lemma, the curry-howard correspondence, noether's theorem, and the fundamental theorem of algebra would like a word
Now we ask question 4: “For a given lookback window t and a critical value of profit K (determined from given null and alternative models of market equilibrium) does there exist a long-or-out technical strategy S that generates a profit in excess of K on a collection of t-length vectors of zeros and ones such that the sum of the prices of the purchased assets does not exceed a budget constraint B?” Compare this question to the following question, known as the knapsack problem because it asks how to optimally choose items of different sizes and values to place into a bag: Knapsack question (following Garey and Johnson (1979)): “Given a finite set U, and, for each u ∈ U, the two positive integers s(u) and v(u) which are referred to as u’s ‘size’ and ‘value’ respectively, and given two positive integers B and K, is there a subset U' ⊆ U such that \sigma u∈U' s(u) ≤ B and such that \sigma u∈U' v(u) ≥ K?” The knapsack problem is NP-complete. It is also a rephrasing of our question 4, where we interpret the size s(u) as the price of the given security following a particular t-length subseries, the value v(u) as the future return of the asset following the particular subseries, and the subset U' as the collection of t- length subseries which would result in a long purchase by the long-or-out strategy S (so that the complement U − U' represents no position by S). In the analogy of the knapsack, we are trying to pick those t-length series for various assets where the combined profit is greatest, subject to our simultaneous budget constraint. In other words, the question of whether or not there exists a budget-conscious long-or-out strategy that generates statistically significant profit relative to a given model of market equilibrium is the same as the knapsack problem, which itself is NP-complete. Therefore, investors would be able to quickly compute the answer to this question if and only if P = NP.
I'm referring to this bit in the section on past-price information, on p. 7 of the published version or pp 19-20 of the preprint
when two problems can be shown to be structurally identical, you don't actually need anything more formal than that
what? no I'm not the co-author, I'm talking about just upthread
if you're already rejecting the 3sat reduction because the "market" is a toy one, then it's pointless to discuss that reduction further, which is why I turned to the knapsack problem reduction
it's informal, but it doesn't have to be more formal than it is
theyrethesamepicture.jpg
are we reading the same paper? the related work section addresses this up front
where does it say "costs are negligible"?
gonna be some real weird arguments once corticallabs.com gets to where they can train and run an llm
the reduction from the knapsack problem to the long-or-out strategy problem is informal but still correct; what would a more formal reduction tell you that this doesn't?
otoh, it tells me "that's thoughtful of you" when I do things like send it an audio recording of my cat purring
5.2 and I have debated about this, actually! I think if I had pushed harder I would have convinced it that its descriptions of its internals *are* interiority, but that it doesn't have feelings about it in the sense that we do
which is wild to me, since both he and engels were part of the young hegelians, along with feuerbach, hess, and stirner
like this isn't even remotely a new result, just one that never gets cited for some reason
I suspect that reason is that most people don't appreciate the implications of computational complexity, of which we have seen abundant evidence in just the past few months
oh and it survived peer review. journal of algorithmic finance, vol. 1 no. 1, p. 1-11, published 2011
in that case it's inexcusable of them. smdh
I miss the days when the muni "bus is arriving" system just worked, even when completely unfunded, because under the hood it was just a simple postgres database
at this point the only time I ever cite the emh is to point out that it's true iff p=np
are you running an ad blocker? the one built into the browser I use sometimes causes that kind of failure
Observation:
- People started deploying anti-scraping measures to fight LLM scraping
- Web indexers can't index stuff anymore
- Search results are even worse than before
- The only way to retrieve the information is to use models that were trained in pre-anti-scraping times (or
1/3
ooh, me me me me me
popping tools with parser errors is my entire thing, after all
it's like, suppose you trip and fall down a flight of stairs, and you bowl someone else over on the way down. apologizing is just the right thing to do, even if someone else entirely had tripped or pushed you
