News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Navier–Stokes Lost in Translation by matusp on Thursday October 08, 2026 @02:42PM (#50010151)
> Yeah, and if you re-run the same program with the same bug, it will fail the same way each time.

[Citation needed]

Re:Navier–Stokes Lost in Translation by FrustratedMonky on Thursday October 08, 2026 @05:56PM (#50012964)
Citation

2 + 2 = 5 -> Error

Every time.

Re:Navier–Stokes Lost in Translation by FrustratedMonky on Friday October 09, 2026 @08:51AM (#50019766)
Got to thinking maybe you were still in school and hadn't covered determinism yet. Here is old school stack overflow answer that is short and clear.

The environment does matter. I think in your original objection, you were executing the code in different environments.

https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/38152/what-is-determi...

And to the point of the original article. Each human interpreting natural language is a new environment. Each brain is a new compiler with different outcomes. Thus the ambiguity. Natural language isn't concrete enough to always have the same result when processed by different humans, or AI.

Re:Navier–Stokes Lost in Translation by matusp on Sunday October 11, 2026 @01:06PM (#50045368)
The top reply is already all you needed:

> the answer with many multi-threaded programs is often "no."

Re:Navier–Stokes Lost in Translation by FrustratedMonky on Monday October 12, 2026 @10:28AM (#50056957)
And, nobody would correct them? If a programs output is random, what use is it.

Isn't the original point, that natural language isn't sufficient for proofs? Aren't you agreeing now?