Halting Problem & Quantum Entanglement 2020 Breakthrough result [MIP*=RE]

Isn't infinite dimensions of entanglement just the same as communication? (Or is that precisely what this result proves?)

maybe you can recall that there are infinite of the categories
7=NRE,8=XE,9=NXE,10=AE,11=NAE,12=GE,13=NGE,...,Infinity=IE,Inf+1=NIE

I like your funny words magic man

“So for this next bit, yeah, we’re just gonna give the provers quantum devices.”
“Why?”
“Why not?”

A Not-Halt pseudo-semi-solver: halts if no, goes on if yes.

Why are you like me to the point where computer science and quantum entanglement are being used at the same time.

When a man gets older, program p does halt from time to time.

I cannot watch all your new video in my phone!

underrated indeed!

Imagine NRE, things that when verifying, if it is correct, it will stop, but if not, it may run forever. What about stuff outside NRE? Is there anything outside NRE?

This was hard to understand due to the wall of jargon

If mip* is in re and the halting problem is in re. Why not solve the halting problem

the malicious provers are really cute

how does the quantum entanglement help them coordinate?

Upon scrutinizing the halting problem theorem, I am convinced of the opposite: HALT \in R. Discussion requested.

Hoe what 😭

Still waiting on that short video proving PSPACE contains P.

That’s a very cute “No” sound!

When you refer to the time it takes to return an answer, are you talking about the O number?

Why are the boolean operators different than || && ! etc ?

I need a solver that can prove I'll understand this some day

"We class there coxpleity with how much recourses they consume". Asm for ever

why are nexp and exp the same?

I think I just had a stroke watching this

I can prove a program halts in linear time. Why can't a computer do the same? Is this about programs that require some mathematical fact that's beyond our current understanding of math to prove they halt?

Thank you for this fantastic video explaining this topic.

Never did I think I’d see quantum entanglement brought up in a computation theory context

to summarize for the dummies, can yes mean no? as long as the definitions remain the same, no. yes cannot mean no. and no, nothing still does not exist.

I just graduated high school having taken nothing past physics 1 and yet I watched this entire thing, understanding maybe a third of it

Unsat verification should only take one more step than the sat verification since all you have to do is invert the output of sat if true output false if false output true same with halt and not halt. Proving something is true proves its not false, proving something is false is proving its not true if you can answer one you have already answered its opposite value.

Coordination is communication...

“The machine will run forever and get stuck.”
RAID shadow legends ad starts playing

Its quite simple: infinite dimensional entanglement can't be approximated by the finite tensor product model.

I gotta say, you really Frog Fractioned the hell out of this explanation.

no clue what most of these words mean

This is total intellectual nonsense. " whether a two-player nonlocal game has entangled value 1 or at most 1
2" is no more decidable than the question if pi is a rational number can be decided by using a ruler. ;-)

this channel is amazing

astonishingly clear

What a time to be alive; this is terrifying that we're able to reason so much about what can be figured

PAL("racecar")=true

PAL(x)=Reverse(x)===x ? "true" : "false"

can't you just invert the outputs?