niplav @niplav@schelling.pt

the crossing of a trit and a bit is a brit

incomparability only ever appears in stated, never in revealed preferences

is the biggest snail bigger than the smallest rabbit?

I have aligned your AI system. Pray I don't align it any further

@kirjis @faho Same thing in his book

Things that are a fact in ℝ³ but not in ℝ²:

* You can embed any graph
* Random walk never returns to origin (in expectation)

Any others?

@nova Understandable

@kaia
Tolkien (having heard only the first question) *takes a deeeeep breath*

@faho thank you, needed this today 🙏

harberger taxes and land-value taxes are in P, Pigou taxes are in NP

what's the equivalent to the flicker fusion threshold for hearing/tasting/smelling?

“danger lives at my hairtips” she pouted and downed the day-after pill with two finger widths of tequila

@Erik You ask me. 3 people just boosted my graph theory∩utility theory post which was just definitions

In the context of making inconsistent preferences consistent, these are fairly strong results.

Not sure about their approximation behavior, but I think this makes becoming a coherent agent very difficult.

• PCS and all c∈C have minimum graph edit distance of i. (Proof sketch: There is a graph for which all acyclic tournaments with the same (minimal) graph-edit distance don't contain a specific subgraph). Graph in picture, the minimal edit distance is 3, the non-preserved consistent subgraph is a2→a4. This extends to arbitrarily big consistent subgraphs (replace all edges with acyclic tournaments with n nodes).

Then you have the following impossibilities:

• PCS and f has polynomial runtime. (Proof sketch: finding an s of size k is in NP. Finding all of them is in NP as well.)
• PCS and C has polynomial size. (Proof sketch: You can construct a graph with exponentially many acyclic tournaments as subgraphs).