It is not supposed that null is the bottom value in the universe of all the values that your program can recognize? Why people need to complicate it?, and yeah in that definition `null == null`, but a `null_pointer != null` because null pointer is at the bottom of all the possible pointer value, and null by itself is not a pointer. The same for (0,null), (false, null) and ("", null). null should only be equal to itself.
And lastly undefined != null, because undefined is related with structures indicating that a field was not defined when the structure was created
Arts need a story behind it to be relevant, art without drama and real struggles from an individual is not really worth the time, it's just souless and boring. These kinds of tools are good for memes, and that is.
Graph drawing tools are also very underwhelming, they work pretty good for small graphs until you have something like 500 nodes or more, then eventually their output becomes complete incompressible or very difficult to look at it, they miss the ability to automatically organize those graph in hierarchical structures and provide a nice interface to explore them, we are used that everything around us have some kind of hierarchy, I think that is the same kind of problem that will need to be solved in order to have a generic graph data type, also this kind of thing will need to be implemented at the compiler level where those graph generic algos will be adapted to the generated hierarchy of structures, and if you add a theorem prover that can check that certain subgraph will always have certain structures you can statically generated those procedures and for the other super graphs those methods will be generated dynamically at runtime.
So whoever solve the problem for generic graph drawing will have the ability or the insight to implement this too.
Some algorithms do better at this than others, but "make a good diagram of a graph" is an intelligence-complete problem in the general case. Two people might render structurally-identical graphs in very different ways, to emphasize different aspects of the data. This is in fact a similar problem to the "generic graph algorithm" and "generic graph data structure" problems.
Graphs straddle the line between code and data. For instance, any given program has a call graph, so in a real sense, the "generic graph algorithm" is just computation.
> we are used that everything around us have some kind of hierarchy
I think the problem is more that we are used to the illusion/delusion that everything is hierarchical. The problem that we then encouter is with graph drawing is that it has to try and reconcile the fact that things in practice are rarely really hierarchical, and it's hard to draw those lines of where the hierarchies are with mathematical rigor. And that problem gets worse and worse the less properties you are allowed to assume about the underlying graph structure (connectedness, cyclic/acyclic, sparse/dense).
In practice when you want build a UI that interacts with graphs it's often feasible to determine/impose one or two levels of meta-hierarchy with which you can do clustering (allows for reducing layout destroying impact of hairball nodes + improves rendering performance by reducing node count) and layout with fCOSE (Cytoscape.js has an implementation of that).
The universe, for me, without any doubt, is a simulation, I even believe that the the algorithms that would explain how the universe reached this level of complexity would be the same that explain intelligence, I think that we got all wrong believing that matter come before consciousness when, in reality, it is the other way around. And languages are a big part of all the equation, physics and space are all languages.
Why are being downvoted?, there have been crazy comment on this website, hyping to the max ChatGPT and how all the humans now are useless, I was just ignoring HN for the past weeks because it have been ridiculous
> ‘Probably because it has nothing to do with the article.’
Assuming you have read the comment, it is totally relevant to the article with AI (in this case LLMs or GPTs like ChatGPT) still not being able to transparently prove unsolved mathematical problems or even generate such solutions with and without supervision, since even if it was supervised, it will still generate it incorrectly and as with its black-box nature, it cannot reason or explain transparently.
The fact the those teenagers were able to create and derive this proof without regurgitation and withstood the scrutiny of experienced mathematicians tells us that it requires creative thought with transparent reasoning in the field to go against the books written by experts that once said it was ‘impossible’ until proven otherwise.
Why people will upload their code to GitHub (if they are working in some state-of-the-art tech) is beyond me, you will be easily replaced by microsoft and they will say that was a product generated by gpt, see what happened in Amazon store with the popular products
