3 ms·

Nope. You could call that basic logic... and you'd be wrong, because it's not basic logic.

giantg2 5y ago
How so? The comment clearly states that they aren't doing any formal calculations, not using numerical methods, and just getting approximate insights. If I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong and post a substantive comment. Snarky comments like that are not inline with HN guidelines.
- SamReidHughes 5y ago
  It's not a snarky comment, it's literally, not actually basic logic. You had no factual basis for saying it was. Basic logic is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic Dynamical systems has stuff that is not basic logic such as this topological concept which is applicable in understanding how stuff works without doing an actual calculation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_cycle That's calculus. Not logic, not philosophy.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    You misunderstand. This is the basic logic I was talking about. Note my comment mentioned philosophy. Same for limit cycles - they make no mention or this type of calculation. The concept can exist in other domains such as systems thinking. So concepts do exist outside the context of pure math. If you look at everything from a hard math perspective, then that is what you will see. You have to look at the context of the comments to understand. It's not necessarily calculus because the commenter might not be looking at it using those strict theories. There's no support for your assertion that it's not philosophy or not logic. It could coincidentally be similar to a calculus concept, but that doesn't mean that one is using calculus if they are approaching it from a different context that shares a similar concept. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_logic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_logic
    - SamReidHughes 5y ago
      Limit cycles are a concrete example of "analysis of stability, classification of fixed point types, topological limits to what small changes to the system can do to the behavior." This is calculus, not logic, not philosophy.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Did they say they're using limit cycles? They could be using less formal methods that are not calculus, like most people do. You have not spoken to the context or approach they are using. Similar concepts can exist in multiple domains with varying levels of formality. Again, any evidence this is not logic or philosophy? Simply saying it isn't, is not a valid argument. Just because you assert a concept exists calculus, does not mean a similar one doesn't exist in another domain/context. Any response to the majority of my comment, especially around context of use? Or are you just trolling by repeating the same line in multiple comments with no substantive support for your claims? Honest question.
- lanstin 5y ago
  Not doing numerical analysis, but that's not the same as not doing formal analysis. I was thinking of things such as this fascinating paper, particularly the shape of the overall manifold that gives rise to Figure 2: https://sigops.org/s/conferences/hotos/2021/papers/hotos21-s11-bronson.pdf https://sigops.org/s/conferences/hotos/2021/papers/hotos21-s... The insights from these topics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dynamical_systems_and_differential_equations_topics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dynamical_systems_and_...

How so? The comment clearly states that they aren't doing any formal calculations, not using numerical methods, and just getting approximate insights. If I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong and post a substantive comment. Snarky comments like that are not inline with HN guidelines.

SamReidHughes 5y ago
It's not a snarky comment, it's literally, not actually basic logic. You had no factual basis for saying it was. Basic logic is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic Dynamical systems has stuff that is not basic logic such as this topological concept which is applicable in understanding how stuff works without doing an actual calculation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_cycle That's calculus. Not logic, not philosophy.
- giantg2 5y ago
  You misunderstand. This is the basic logic I was talking about. Note my comment mentioned philosophy. Same for limit cycles - they make no mention or this type of calculation. The concept can exist in other domains such as systems thinking. So concepts do exist outside the context of pure math. If you look at everything from a hard math perspective, then that is what you will see. You have to look at the context of the comments to understand. It's not necessarily calculus because the commenter might not be looking at it using those strict theories. There's no support for your assertion that it's not philosophy or not logic. It could coincidentally be similar to a calculus concept, but that doesn't mean that one is using calculus if they are approaching it from a different context that shares a similar concept. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_logic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_logic
  - SamReidHughes 5y ago
    Limit cycles are a concrete example of "analysis of stability, classification of fixed point types, topological limits to what small changes to the system can do to the behavior." This is calculus, not logic, not philosophy.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Did they say they're using limit cycles? They could be using less formal methods that are not calculus, like most people do. You have not spoken to the context or approach they are using. Similar concepts can exist in multiple domains with varying levels of formality. Again, any evidence this is not logic or philosophy? Simply saying it isn't, is not a valid argument. Just because you assert a concept exists calculus, does not mean a similar one doesn't exist in another domain/context. Any response to the majority of my comment, especially around context of use? Or are you just trolling by repeating the same line in multiple comments with no substantive support for your claims? Honest question.
lanstin 5y ago
Not doing numerical analysis, but that's not the same as not doing formal analysis. I was thinking of things such as this fascinating paper, particularly the shape of the overall manifold that gives rise to Figure 2: https://sigops.org/s/conferences/hotos/2021/papers/hotos21-s11-bronson.pdf https://sigops.org/s/conferences/hotos/2021/papers/hotos21-s... The insights from these topics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dynamical_systems_and_differential_equations_topics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dynamical_systems_and_...