Remix clone Hacker News

I'm being a bit pedantic here, but it is not categorically wrong. Categorically wrong doesn't just mean "very wrong" it is a specific type of being wrong, a type that this isn't.

Repetition codes are a type of error correction code. It is thus in the category of error correction codes. Even if it is not the right error correction codes, it is in the correct category, so it is not a categorical error.

▲

Dylan16807 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I interpret that sentence as taking about real computers, which does put it outside the category.

▲

bawolff a day ago | parent [-]

That's the definition of a normal error not a category error.

If you disagree, what do you see as something that would be in the correct category but wrong in the sentence?

The normal definition of category error is something that is so wrong it doesn't make sense on a deep level. Like for example if they suggested quicksort as an error correction code.

The mere fact we are talking about "real" computers should be a tip off its not a category error, since people can build new computers. Category errors are wron a priori. Its possible someone tomorrow will build a computer using a repetition code for error correcting. It is not possible they will use quicksort for ECC. Repetition codes is in the right category of things even if it is the wrong instance. Quicksort is not in the right category.

	▲	Dylan16807 a day ago \| parent [-]
		> The normal definition of category error is something that is so wrong it doesn't make sense on a deep level. Can you show me a definition that says that about the phrase "categorically wrong"? And I think the idea that computers could change is a bit weak.

▲

cycomanic 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Well it's about as categorically wrong as saying quantum computers use similar error correction algorithms as classical computers. Categorically both are are error correction algorithms.