Corey J. Maley

Corey J. Maley

@coreymaley.net

Philosopher of computation, neuroscience, and AI. Associate professor at Purdue University. https://coreymaley.net

796 followers474 following208 posts

Pinned

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

Before Turing Machines, computability theory, and computational complexity theory, there were computers. They were people: mostly women. This is one of my favorite photos of a computer, because it shows her using two distinct computing methods.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

I’ll probably read this, but the cover is maddening. One can absolutely disagree with Turing—I do about some things. But the guy was absolutely not a dunce.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

This is good.

roterote aka Hunter CG@roterote.bsky.social

Here is the full suspension letter from UGent that was sent to Nathan Cofnas, it shows ample reason for his suspension and potential termination. Including breach of contract, using the University of Ghent’s name and legitimacy to promote his racial supremacist views and causing reputational damage.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

So just because I'm annoyed, here's the relevant part of the piece I was told to go read. Which I did. And I agree with everything in it. I've actually read this whole paper before. I think it's a good one.

View full thread
Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

I don't know. That seemed condescending to me. Assuming I don't know what I'm talking about because of a typo, and I guess because I was talking about intractability not in terms of something being NP-hard, I was ignorant?

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

Oh well. People have a right to believe that they cannot possibly be wrong, and if you question them, then you're obviously an ignorant jerk who is acting in bad faith and didn't read what they said they did. Because experts never make mistakes, or misread others' questions.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

So just because I'm annoyed, here's the relevant part of the piece I was told to go read. Which I did. And I agree with everything in it. I've actually read this whole paper before. I think it's a good one.

View full thread
Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

"The so-called Integer Factorization problem (Shor, 1997) provides an example: No polynomial-time algorithm is known (nor believed) to exist for Integer Factorization, yet the problem is efficiently computable by a quantum computer."

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

But because somewhere I said "NP" instead of "NP-hard", I was told to go do my homework because that's such a basic mistake it's too hard to explain. Because typos indicate ignorance.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

So just because I'm annoyed, here's the relevant part of the piece I was told to go read. Which I did. And I agree with everything in it. I've actually read this whole paper before. I think it's a good one.

View full thread
Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

Now this piece is right in saying that many people assume, incorrectly, that quantum computers can solve NP-hard problems. I know that too, and I never claimed it. Which is part of why I specifically mentioned that I get that Integer Factorization is in sub-exponential.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

So I asked, isn't this a counterexample to the idea that hardware doesn't matter for intractability, assuming that sub-exponential is intractable? This line from the paper made me think that the original claim the person made was just not correct, by their own lights:

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

So just because I'm annoyed, here's the relevant part of the piece I was told to go read. Which I did. And I agree with everything in it. I've actually read this whole paper before. I think it's a good one.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

It notes that Integer Factorization is NOT NP-hard. If it were, it would be intractable. I know that. But it *is* in sub-exponential, which is another class that is generally taken to be intractable. Also, Integer Factorization is in BQP: polynomial time for quantum computers. As it notes.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

One of my favorite contemporary philosophers!

Thomas Spiteri@tespiteri.bsky.social

How do we come to know the hypercomplex object that is the brain? I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr Mazviita Chirimuuta about the history and philosophy of its simplification, its analogy with computers, & the case for theoretical humility in how we study it. Links: linktr.ee/thehpspodcast

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

Someone blocked me for questioning the claim that “hardware doesn’t matter for tractability.” This person knows this area well, but also it seems like at least one case of a quantum algorithm is a counter example. Integer factorization on classical computers is intractable.

View full thread
Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

This person assumed I didn’t know what I was talking about because I accidentally wrote “in NP” instead of “NP-hard,” and seemed bothered that I was questioning them at all, so I got blocked. In any case, I still don’t get what I’m getting so wrong here. If someone can tell me, I’d appreciate it.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

Someone blocked me for questioning the claim that “hardware doesn’t matter for tractability.” This person knows this area well, but also it seems like at least one case of a quantum algorithm is a counter example. Integer factorization on classical computers is intractable.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

It’s not NP-hard, but in the sub-exponential complexity class. NP-hard problems are intractable, but so are those in the sub-exponential class. There is an algorithm (Shor’s algorithm) that factors integers in polynomial time (it’s in the BQP class , thus tractable), but it’s a quantum algorithm.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

Does anyone want to read a draft of a short paper on why Marr’s levels aren’t actually levels? If so, I have one, and I’d appreciate any feedback!

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

I'm really excited that photographer James Ball is letting me use one of his beautiful photos of an analog computer as part of the cover for my book!

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

Coincidentally, I presented at a conference on analog computing this summer in Frankfurt, Germany, co-organized by Bernd Ulmann. It turns out that this very computer is part of his personal collection!

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

I'm really excited that photographer James Ball is letting me use one of his beautiful photos of an analog computer as part of the cover for my book!

Corey J. Maley reposted

David Colaço
@davidcolaco.bsky.social

October 9th, I will give the closing lecture at the 3rd International Symposium on the Connection Between Physics and Metabolism in Brain Functions. It will take place in Barcelona. Registration is open. Junior scholars can apply for travel scholarships #philsci, #cogsci, #neuroskyence, #philsky

formacion.sjdhospitalbarcelona.orgInternational Symposium on the Connection Between Physics and Metabolism in Brain FunctionsDiscover emerging research on quantum biology, mechanobiology and cognition through expert-led sessions connecting science, medicine and innovation.
Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

"Don’t let fear get in the way and don’t be afraid to say “I don’t know” or “I don’t understand” – no question is a dumb question." — Margaret Hamilton, leader of the Software Engineering Division of the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, who programmed the Apollo Guidance Computer for NASA.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

A world worth visiting but never a place you’d want to live, where the story was more than just a vehicle for the author to show off a clever thought experiment. I’m curious to see how this 40-year old novel will be translated into a TV series.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

Before Turing Machines, computability theory, and computational complexity theory, there were computers. They were people: mostly women. This is one of my favorite photos of a computer, because it shows her using two distinct computing methods.

View full thread
Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

But the mathematical theory of digital computation became extremely interesting and useful, and became synonymous with *all* computation. Coupled with analog computing machines being replaced by digital ones, analog computation has been largely dismissed.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

I'm close to finishing a large paper I've been working on for years on this topic. Analog computation is misunderstood and undertheorized, which is a shame, because it's both theoretically interesting and likely useful for understanding (some of) what neural systems do.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

Before Turing Machines, computability theory, and computational complexity theory, there were computers. They were people: mostly women. This is one of my favorite photos of a computer, because it shows her using two distinct computing methods.

View full thread
Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

Both methods have been used for millennia, and both have been mechanized. Computing machines were once primarily analog, but now they're almost exclusively digital; we just call those machines computers now. Importantly, they're both real types of computation, although it's easy to forget.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

Why? Because Turing (and others) were interested only in digital computation, or "effective procedures" when it came to studying what is "computable." They didn't mean computable by *any* device: they meant to capture "computable by hand, following simple rules, without cleverness or instruments."

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

Before Turing Machines, computability theory, and computational complexity theory, there were computers. They were people: mostly women. This is one of my favorite photos of a computer, because it shows her using two distinct computing methods.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

One is digital: using numbers, represented by their digits (the adding machine and graph paper she's using). This is how we ordinarily represent numbers, and how we compute with them (e.g., elementary addition, using least significant digits first, then next-most-significant, etc.).

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

The other is analog: using a slide rule. Here, numbers are represented by a physical magnitude; in this case, length. So rather than π being "3.14159", it is a length of 3.141 units on the slide rule. Analog computing amounts to manipulating these magnitudes, rather than individual digits.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

When my computer crashed my freshman year of college, I lost everything I had made for this game. 50-some pages of code, all the artwork, etc. I thought it was completely gone.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

But it lives! Well, the beta version lives. There was a better version that I charged $10 for (totally honor system), and I made a bit more than $200! Good times.

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

"There are many things which appear obvious when they are once stated but are not so easy to state precisely for the first time." Campbell, N. R. (1920). Physics: The Elements. p. 281

Corey J. Maley
@coreymaley.net

This was such an amazing conference! It was an honor to speak in front of a room full of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians who took the time to listen to me talk about foundational and conceptual issues in computation, especially analog computation. analog-computing-days.org