Maybe the media headlines are sensational (as they always are), and it’s unfortunate that it leaked before the papers were officially released.
But Jupiter emitting radio waves is really not relevant here. The signal they saw is a very arrow frequency, which pretty strongly indicates a technological origin. See [1] for a better overview of the situation.
A human is no more capable of solving the halting problem than a computer.
And we aren’t doing some kind of magical logic when we humans create proofs. Sure naively general automated proof generation could be exponential in nature, but that hasn’t stopped us from mathematics research. There’s no reason it should stop computers either.
Humans can solve problems that aren't solvable by algorithms and that's why humans can - in general - decide whether a given program will halt. That doesn't mean every human can or that it has been done for every program (which would be impossible, since there are infinitely many instances anyway).
But the difference between humans and Turing Machines (computers) is, that humans can and did proof undecidable problems, while algorithms provably can't.
This is a fundamental difference and there's no way around it. So whatever might be done in ATP, it can't be algorithmic in nature or based on a Turing Machine in order to be applied universally.
Unless of course, you know of a way to disprove Gödel and Turing...
I don't know what made you believe this, but humans are not magical. We absolutely can't solve the halting problem, and by definition nothing can decide an undecidable problem. As far as we know so far, the human mind is a (limited) Turing machine. In fact, as far as we know, there is no computing system more powerful than a Turing machine.
yeah that's not a thing. Humans do regularly "solve" undecidable theorems, if by solve you mean "come up with heuristics that are good enough". Possibly even "provably good enough", as in "if there's a flaw in the algorithm, the lower bound on the badness of the input to make it unreachable in the lifetime of the universe".
For a constellation as large as starlink, that would probably require a lot of missiles, even accounting for Kessler effects.
Also, doings such a thing to an American corporation that's only one or two degrees of separation from the USDoD may prove to be a costly mistake. I think Belarus would need to depend on the strength of their relationship with Russia to avoid retaliation. That hasn't protected Syria though, so maybe Belarus [Lukashenko] should think twice before attempting some hotheaded shit like that.
I doubt Belarus has the infrastructure to shoot them down, them asking Russia to and giving Russia the excuse that the US violated the Outer Space Treaty first might do the trick though. Depends on how much of a war monger Russia wants to be at the relevant point in time.
They are spread out with many satellites over a small number of orbits, pretty ideal for Kessler, or pretty ideal for another satellite to pass by a whole line of them and stick a bullet (small detachable impactor) in each.
Or some Russian hardware mysteriously is “stolen” and ends up in Belarus with some little green men to operate it.
Would they need to shoot down the entire constellation? I could imagine them threatening to shoot it down (and maybe a few demonstrations) would be enough to convince SpaceX to stop sending signals into Belarus.
I dislike Putin, but I think he's too smart to start shooting down hundreds of American satellites (barring WWIII.) That's far brasher than anything else they've done in quite a while.
> Research suggests that there is an ongoing reversed Flynn effect, i.e. a decline in IQ scores, in Norway, Denmark, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, France and German-speaking countries,[4] a development which appears to have started in the 1990s.[5][6][7][8]
Virulence versus pathogenicity. Perhaps you contend that SARS' pathogenicity is greater than this coronavirus'? But virulence demands our attention, too. Why? Because public engagement can help prevent its spread.
When AIDS/HIV was near its peak, folks would often compare it in a similar fashion to cancer. If we ignore the fact that cancer is a big diverse bucket, most/many cancers really don't have any 'virulence' so getting public attention to drive best practices to mitigate spread just don't make any sense.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/04/131018/why-the-q...