Well, there is perfect hashing [1]. Of course it does only work under several assumptions. And you pay for it in terms of time it takes to construct the hash function or in terms of space.
1,280 karma · joined January 23, 2008
The claim that the parenting style causes kids to be neurotic is exactly what the OP argues to be false (see yummyfajita's sister comment).
A digit is "a symbol (a number symbol, e.g. "3" or "7") used in numerals (combinations of symbols, e.g. "37"), to represent numbers (integers or real numbers) in positional numeral systems." (Source: Wikipedia)
For example, the number 17 consists of the digits 1 and 7.
So n digits of the Fibonacci sequence is ill-defined. Maybe a reasonable interpretation could be: n digits if you concatenate Fibonacci numbers. (At least, that was my working interpretation while reading the post until I realized that the OP had no idea what a digit is.) Since the question does not ask for the first n digits, you can choose any digit. I assume the Fibonacci sequence has n "1"s (actually I have no proof for that, but since the Fibonacci numbers are infinite it is reasonable assumption IMHO). Hence: print "1"*n
> Print n digits of the Fibonacci sequence
is (in Python): print "1"*n
That was certainly news to me. Who would have thought that the 12th _digit_ of the Fibonacci sequence is 144.
But have you ever considered that the difference between your arguments (i) to (v) (with exception of (iii) maybe) is the intention of the humans involved not the suffering or the dead of the respective animals? This kind of moral reasoning is human and can be seen in other areas as well. For example, we care a lot more about the comparably "few" deaths caused by terrorism vs. the many caused by traffic, because presumably in the former there is intention of bad guys involved whereas in the latter its merely bad circumstances and chance. The result is the same: an animal or a human is killed. However, the moral reasoning is different. Just saying ...
Also if you apply ln(P) as utility function then the partial derivate for W yields the same result to U(P) = U(AW) as to U(P) = U(W), namely 1/W. So in that case your inequality does not hold.
First, if the utility function was "downward sloping" nobody would ever work. It's the marginal utility that is assumed to slope downwards (I assume you know this, because you later argue as if you did). But this is the opposite as in your example: It should read dU(x)/dW < dU(y)/dW whenever x > y (not x < y).
More importantly, your negative income tax definition is faulty. A NIT has never the form proposed by you. It wouldn't make much sense. Also, if A > 1 (in fact, if A > 0) you always have an incentive to work in your model, assuming dU/dW > 0.
And by the way, I don't know where you received your math education, but dU(AW)/dW = A dU(AW)/dW does not follow. For example, let U(P) be a simple concave utility function U(P) = ln(P) = ln(AW). Then dU(P)/dW = d(ln(A)+ln(W))/dW = 1/W != A 1/W.
This is all not so bad. Everybody makes mistakes (maybe I made one above). What bothers me is that some hacker news readers have apparently upvoted you without ever checking the results.
Let me first tackle the philosophical level: First, you insist on the impractical notion that it is only the suffering that counts and must be reduced no matter what. Being a intelligent fella you realize that the consequence would be the annihilation of all sentient life including your own. Since presumably you realize the absurd notion of this consequence you try to reclaim the validity of your argument by arguing that “not forcing others” is another crucial prerequisite in your ethic. (Regarding your own suffering and the ending of it you simply declare that “life is complicated”. Aha, so much for consistency. (By all means: be inconsistent in that case.)) But strictly speaking, you cannot force life on someone because that someone does not exist before she is alive. You can see it in your own comments. You talk about “forcing life on newborns”. But this is not true. Before they were alive they simply were not there. By definition you cannot force something that does not exist. Again: I can force you to give me your money but I cannot force something nonexistent to do anything. So you are back to square one: total annihilation of all life.
The same reasoning applies to your heroin addiction analogy by the way: The alternatives are not heroin vs. no heroin but heroin addiction vs. death. You see, you can without a doubt compare a person that is heroin addicted to one that is not and conclude the the non-addict is for some reasonable metric better off. But you cannot compare a person who is alive with something that does not exist. It doesn’t make any sense.
The philosophical nitpicking aside, what really strikes me as odd is your sole focus on suffering. In your picture you also “force the newborn” with high probability to having two legs, in- and exhaling air, and opening a bank account before her 30th birthday. And who likes that? But wouldn’t it be much more reasonable, as other commenters have pointed out, to account for more than just the suffering in the calculation whether a life is worth living? When you are in need for something, lets say food, do you only take into account the costs or do you compare the benefit you get from the food vs. its costs (the costs being the suffering in this analogy)? I mean, as a “life addict” yourself you realize that the suffering is sometimes not everything that counts especially when it is outweighed by the benefits you have by being alive. Don’t get me wrong: of course suffering is bad. But as you said yourself “life is complicated” and often you have to take more into account than just one single variable like suffering or the opening of a bank account.
It is of course your choice whether you procreate or not. But your argument against it might not be as conclusive as you might think.
Thought experiment: If you go outside right now with a gun in your hand and start asking random strangers "Would you like to die right now?" what do you think how many of them will answer "Yes, please."?
Not true now [1] and not true back then [2].
[1] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1134743 [2] http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eclstabus/1670r.htm (Fig. 1)
It is my understanding, that your argument is: 1) Article assumes people discuss ideas to signal social standing. But: 2) People discuss ideas because the enjoy it, 3) and not because they want to signal social standing. Therefore the article is faulty.
All I am saying is: 1) and 2) may both be right. The contradiction between 2) and 3) does not arise if people are not aware of the underlying motivations for their behavior.
See also rdtsc's comment.
I am neither ignoring the context of the article nor am I making "sweeping generalizations" or "projections". And I would prefer if you don't make these assumptions about me.
All I am saying is that signaling does not have to be conscious or self-aware in the sense of "Oh, I have to say this and that to rise to the top of the hipster hierarchy". It might just be the hipster enjoys dressing contrary to the mainstream just as the contrarian enjoys arguing contrary to the mainstream opinion. Hence my analogy: I enjoy sex. It's a heuristic shaped by my genes that would usually serve the purpose of reproduction. People enjoy signaling in the form of buying nice cars of putting on make-up: it's heuristic shaped by our genes that on average (not every signal leads to a better outcome) increases the chance of reproduction. It is not the you actively think "Okay: if I buy a car it might increase my social standing and ultimately increase the chance of girls liking me more.". You just enjoy the stuff. Just as you "just enjoy sex" or the bower bird has an innate desire to build colorful homes.
EDIT for clarity.
Yes, of course it is the (proximate) reason. That is the whole point of the article. It does not argue however, that it happens consciously:
"What is interesting about these triads is not that people hold the positions [..] but that people get deep personal satisfaction from arguing the positions [..]"
People gain satisfaction from arguing. They don't have to be aware of the fact that they might be doing it to signal social standing but that is the end result of their actions on average.
People usually go for status but like to convince themselves (and most often do so successfully) that they do things for a noble course.
Or more to the point: I innately enjoy winning games or working creatively just as the male bower bird [1] finds innate desire to build richly colored bowers to attract females.