Timeline for answer to Is a proof of impossibility allowed as an answer? by l4m2
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 11, 2018 at 13:44 | comment | added | l4m2 | True. Just leave it there to show it's commonly disagreed | |
| Apr 11, 2018 at 12:16 | comment | added | user202729 | (I suppose you already know that downvotes on meta indicates disagreement) | There are some languages implementing such "stronger model" (e.g., Brainhype, Scheme-1), but those languages are not allowed on PPCG becaues they don't have any implementation. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 19:38 | comment | added | Nathan Merrill | 1. So, you are saying that if an answer is impossible, you'll need to provide that proof that it is impossible and then also answer it in a stronger model? 2. The reason I ask about syntax is because we define a language by its implementation: We require an interpreter for that source code. If none exists, then it's an invalid answer. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 18:48 | comment | added | l4m2 | 1.No strong model abusing. If no valid usual model solution, stronger is allowed. 2. There are alreasy some syntax designed for such @NathanMerrill | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 18:01 | comment | added | Nathan Merrill | This opens a can of worms: Can I answer any other question with a stronger model? What's the syntax for this stronger model? What's "strong model abusing"? | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 16:55 | history | answered | l4m2 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |