Comments on “Overdriving approximation”
Adding new comments is disabled for now.
Comments are for the page: Overdriving approximation
Some missing graphs in Overdriving approximation
The first couple of graphs seem to be missing, I see this:
Graphed, this is a straight line:
[linear graph]
The model is not absolutely true. For small enough positive or negative
Missing graphs
Ah, thanks for pointing that out… I need to figure out what program to use to make the plots, learn to use it, and make them, and I keep putting that off!
Math and formal logic
Can you explain a bit more why someone might consider mathematics to be superior to formal logic. Doesn’t Godelian incompleteness put logic and math in the same boat–with symbolic logic having been the tool of choice in the last bravest effort to salvage math from ontological nebulosity?
Calculus rules
Well, in theory all of mathematics can be reduced to logic, so logic is strictly more powerful. In practice, that’s unhelpful and (almost) no one does it.
Outside computer science, the math that’s actually used is mostly differential equations and statistics.
Usualness, adversaries, row hammer
Reading footnote 4 reminded me of row hammer - a security exploit in DRAM that flips normally-inaccessible bits in memory by repeatedly accessing physically nearby rows of memory, thereby using charge leakage. I think that usualness conditions become particularly fraught when there’s an adversary out there who’s deliberately looking for exceptions to the conditions, in order to exploit them.