Recently I read an article that presented a novel idea by Nicolas Gisin. In a nutshell, Gisin says that
only a certain number of digits of real numbers have physical meaning. After some number of digits, for example, the thousandth digit, or maybe even the billionth digit, their values are essentially random.
This is very interesting because it means that there are no noncomputable numbers. Provided this idea is correct, we can easily decide if for example there are three 4s in the decimal expansion of π! The real problem of course is to agree on the number of significant digits. Once this problem is settled, then we can answer any question about physical real numbers. Another consequence of this idea would be that real numbers might be directly representable in even present computer hardware. What is left is to examine deeply this idea and see if it is actually valid.
A few days ago I read that Constantinos Daskalakis got the Rolf Nevanlinna Prize for
For transforming our understanding of the computational complexity of
fundamental problems in markets, auctions, equilibria, and other
economic structures. His work provides both efficient algorithms and
limits on what can be performed efficiently in these domains.
Thus, according to this, we now can somehow compute economies. However, even economists have started to realize that economies cannot be described with mathematics only. In fact,
Why economists need to expand their knowledge to include the humanities is a recent article that discusses exactly this problem. Daskalakis's approach is based on the assumption that humans are Turing machines. Unfortunately, they are not and this is the reason why economists fail so miserably in their predictions. Furthermore, there are some other things that people who work in computational economics "fail" to realize. For example, even if…
This area is full of problems, some of which are physico/mathematical and some of which are conceptual. Unfortunately, from a quick sample, Syropolous's book does not avoid common mistakes and confusions—some of which I've been trying to correct in my own work. First of all, I have to admit that back in 2004 I read a paper by this reviewer, but at that time I did not considered it interesting. However, after I read this review of my book, I read The Physical Church-Turing Thesis: Modest or Bold?, the reviewer's latest manuscript, in order to see what he meant by common mistakes and confusions and how he was trying to solve them. In this manuscript, the reviewer puts forth a number of criteria that every machine has to satisfy in order to be ``useful for physical computing.'' These criteria are: Readable Inputs and OutputsProcess-Independent Rule…