3 ms·

Adding gloss to a topic without leaving the realm of truth can be helpful in inciting interest, as you mention. Similarly, Dr. Michael I. Jordan of UC Berkeley

by andirk 4y ago

Adding gloss to a topic without leaving the realm of truth can be helpful in inciting interest, as you mention. Similarly, Dr. Michael I. Jordan of UC Berkeley describes in no uncertain terms that the phrase "Artificial Intelligence" is misleading in the field of the same name [1]. He basically says our AI thus far is recommendation engines and a self driving car. Is the glossy, somewhat simplified discussion of quantum mechanics == gravity == anti-god particle also misleading? I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the 10th grade Algebra's imaginary number √-1 . [1] https://youtu.be/EYIKy_FM9x0?t=864 https://youtu.be/EYIKy_FM9x0?t=864

pas 4y ago
regarding √-1, the mystery is a bit simpler than with physics, because with math it is what it is, and there's no arguing about how real the math is :) that said, just as in physics we went from the concept of an atom (meaning an undividable whole) to a big ball of nuclear soup with protons and neutron and bound electrons raving around, then even further to noticing an even crazier confluence of chaos of quarks and gluons constantly churning in the nucleus, like that in math we went from integers to reals to complex numbers to saying hold my beer and "dividing number fields with irreducible polynomials" (see algebraic extension) and discovering all kinds of madness. in physics we used mightier and meaner matter smashers, in maths we used ... well, a similar amount of brute force of a certain kind, the kind that solved problems, rules of square roots be damned. and then it turns out that the rule was different all along, and congratulations now you have even more complicated numbers, the complex ones. just as in physics there's the always gnawing question of "okay, but what explains that small blip in the data?" there's the one in math about "okay, sure, that question is so simple-looking it's outright ridiculous/dumb, but how come nobody was able to answer it in decades/centuries? what if ...?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XCFQe2WVhw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XCFQe2WVhw

by andirk 4y ago

pas 4y ago

regarding √-1, the mystery is a bit simpler than with physics, because with math it is what it is, and there's no arguing about how real the math is :) that said, just as in physics we went from the concept of an atom (meaning an undividable whole) to a big ball of nuclear soup with protons and neutron and bound electrons raving around, then even further to noticing an even crazier confluence of chaos of quarks and gluons constantly churning in the nucleus, like that in math we went from integers to reals to complex numbers to saying hold my beer and "dividing number fields with irreducible polynomials" (see algebraic extension) and discovering all kinds of madness. in physics we used mightier and meaner matter smashers, in maths we used ... well, a similar amount of brute force of a certain kind, the kind that solved problems, rules of square roots be damned. and then it turns out that the rule was different all along, and congratulations now you have even more complicated numbers, the complex ones. just as in physics there's the always gnawing question of "okay, but what explains that small blip in the data?" there's the one in math about "okay, sure, that question is so simple-looking it's outright ridiculous/dumb, but how come nobody was able to answer it in decades/centuries? what if ...?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XCFQe2WVhw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XCFQe2WVhw