Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT 22-26 August 2011 (1996-2000)

<< < (81/99) > >>

wrwight:
I think time is a very fluid concept in this comic, and not to be scrutinized too closely. Also, I don't think we know the release schedule for APC chassis. It could be the newest model was already a couple of years old at that point.

jwhouk:
If it wasn't for Pintsize meeting up with Momo, we never would have run into PT-610x (who tried to convince Pintsize he could attain a "sentience matrix");

If it wasn't for Pintsize attempting to rewire himself, Momo wouldn't have encouraged Marten and Dora to ask her "owner" to help fix him;

If it wasn't for Dora and Marten seeking out Momo's owner, they never would have met Marigold;

If Dora had never gone over to Marigold's apartment, she never would have felt compelled to call Hannelore;

If Hannelore had never come over to clean Mari's apartment, they wouldn't have bonded over Yaoi and Magical Love Gentleman;

...and this strip is much better off that they did.

So - it's all Pintsize's fault.  :-D

Skewbrow:

--- Quote from: stoutfiles on 26 Aug 2011, 14:49 ---
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 26 Aug 2011, 14:35 ---
Scientific advance cannot change the basis of mathematical and computational theory.

--- End quote ---

Besides, mathematical and computational theory is just that, theory.  There are huge possible advances such as P=NP that have not been proven or disproven, and then there are accepted laws that are possibly changing, such as the speed of light not being a constant.  Nothing is impossible, especially in the QC world.


--- End quote ---

Hmm. The tasks that have been proven to be algorithmically undecidable remain so forever irrespective of an eventual answer to the P=NP question. Mathematics is different from physics in this sense that the proven facts never change. And computational theory is part of mathematics.  I dare not say to what extent the proofs depend on the concept of the Turing machine as a model for computation, but TM is sufficiently wide a concept to encompass all the imaginable computers. Quantum (or other unconventional) computing may offer some hope for some specific tasks.

But I agree with you in that all of the above is quite irrelevant to the question of whether an AI can be programmed to express emotion or not. We are certainly capable of believing that an AI can express emotion, which is sufficient for many a purpose. And, of course, Jeph is free to use artistic license in order to entertain us and/or himself.

gangler:
If I recall the initial incident was a freak accident that they studied and learned to reproduce. I'm not a mathematician, but it seems almost implicit in the freak accident premise that it utilizes some previously undiscovered principle that would make it possible, or reveals a flaw in a principle previously held to be true. For example maybe the addition of a previously undiscovered variable to the formula you're listing, or the discovery that the formula was ill equipped to deal with a situation never before encountered or conceived.

I know next to nothing about math, but does any of that make sense?

Is it cold in here?:
Reference you're thinking of.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page