Though this has problems with comparing across different computing paradigms (what's the trace of a λ-calculus expression to the one of a Turing machine computation?)
This is maybe downstream from taking the functional and not algorithmic view on similarity: Wouldn't we want to *also* examine the traces we get?
A functional definition of algorithm similarity (number of same outputs on same inputs) disregards some "continuity"-ish assumptions: If A₁ gives the same answer as A₂ for many inputs, but for slightly perturbed inputs they give radically different outputs, I'd call those two algorithms very dissimilar.
> And just—back in the 'aughts, Robin Hanson had this really great blog called _Overcoming Bias_. (You probably haven't heard of it, I said.) I wanted that _vibe_ back, of Robin Hanson's blog in 2008—the will to _just get the right answer_, without all this galaxy-brained hand-wringing about who the right answer might hurt.
Man how can MTSW rock so much
I'm sorry I can't tell you the name of God. I can't tell you the name of God because he is veiled and almightly over in the heavens. he is veiled and almightly over in the heavens because you have exiled him there. You have exiled him there because you were afraid of your good twin. You were afraid by your good twin because your heart is burning off
I operate by Crocker's rules[1].