The *mathematical* breakthrough of quantum computing has already happened; we're just waiting for a few *engineering* breakthroughs. On the other hand, HoTT is still incomplete: the dream is to be able to add univalence and higher inductive types to Martin-Lof type theory and still retain the property of being able to normalise every term. Cubical type theory is a step in the correct direction, but it's still unknown which higher inductive types can be implemented in this theory.
Won't the next breakthrough be quantum computing? If it works. --rwg
On 2018-03-02 09:44, Eugene Salamin via math-fun wrote:
Surely discussion of nuclear reactors should be an allowed math-fun topic.
-- Gene
On Friday, March 2, 2018, 9:28:38 AM PST, Richard Howard <rich@richardehoward.com> wrote:
Sorry about that--will do.
There is the slight twist in that I was trying to respond to the issue of *new technologies* that are down the road. Leaving out geoengineering or pocket nuclear reactors and including Bitcoin seems to be leaving the elephant in the living room from the "technology" point of view.
Adversarial AI is ok, though--right?
--R
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:35 AM, <rcs@xmission.com> wrote:
We've had some new folks join us recently, who might be unaware of some of my arbitrary rules.
The topics of politics and global warming are banned.
Rich
math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun