13 ms·

> obvious mathematical certainty You mean like euclidean geometry?

by kbrkbr 1y ago

d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
I mean that as valuations rise before a bubble bursts, the curve provides that successive values grow, sometimes at an increasing rate. The greatest values, and change in values comes just before the bubble bursts. The point being that high valuations and increasing valuations are not very capable of distinguishing bubble/non-bubble. In fact, tulips were most valuable, and those values were climbing at the highest rate before the tulip bubble burst.
- kbrkbr 1y ago
  Look, I asked >> obvious mathematical certainty > You mean like euclidean geometry To which you reply stuff about values and bubble bursts. What you said may or may not be true. But it's hard for me to tell how it is related to what I asked.
  - d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
    I said that high valuation or valuations rising at an increasing rate is common to bubbles. This clearly refers back to the comment about the current high and rising valuations for AGI prospects.
    - kbrkbr 1y ago
      I see that. I just have a hard time seeing how it is related to my question. Euclidean geometry was an "obvious mathematical certainty". Until it wasn't, and we learned that there are no "obvious mathematical certainties". So I wanted to understand what you mean by this concept. But we can leave it. It's not important. No harm meant.
      - d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
        There are mathematical certainties. In this instance we have that all exponentially growing bubbles will necessarily display the property that values grow and at an increasing rate just before the bubble bursts. This is so fundamental that I can't believe you don't see it. You can construct the growth curve out of this very fact alone. Therefore, the simple fact of growing values and increasing rates of growth in values is not determining bubble/non-bubble. In other words, the statement "I know I am not chasing a bubble because valuations are high and growing at an increasing rate" is categorically false because this property is a common indicator of the exact opposite; that you are in an exponentially growing bubble.
        kbrkbr 1y ago
        Look, neither did I say there are no mathematical certainties, nor did I anywhere argue about the content of what you said. The only thing I said is: there are probably no _obvious_ mathematical certainties in reply to what you said, as the history of mathematics shows with plenty of examples. But it's already too much ink spilled for such a little difference. I reckon now that you use words like "obvious" (or "categorically" in the last reply [1]) as markers of belief strength or something. That's fine, many people do it. [1] related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36808333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36808333
        d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
        > "Look, neither did I say there are no mathematical certainties, nor did I anywhere argue about the content of what you said The only thing I said is: there are probably no _obvious_ mathematical certainties in reply to what you said, as the history of mathematics shows with plenty of examples." There is nothing more obvious and certain mathematically than the fact that exponential growth of bubbles entails increasing valuations and increasing rates of growth in those valuations. I use the word "obvious" quite properly as in "can be read from any graph", or "is contained within the structure or the model". I use categorical because the implied conclusion of the original comment is a categorical error.

> obvious mathematical certainty You mean like euclidean geometry?

by kbrkbr 1y ago

> obvious mathematical certainty You mean like euclidean geometry?

I mean that as valuations rise before a bubble bursts, the curve provides that successive values grow, sometimes at an increasing rate. The greatest values, and change in values comes just before the bubble bursts. The point being that high valuations and increasing valuations are not very capable of distinguishing bubble/non-bubble. In fact, tulips were most valuable, and those values were climbing at the highest rate before the tulip bubble burst.

kbrkbr 1y ago
Look, I asked >> obvious mathematical certainty > You mean like euclidean geometry To which you reply stuff about values and bubble bursts. What you said may or may not be true. But it's hard for me to tell how it is related to what I asked.
- d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
  I said that high valuation or valuations rising at an increasing rate is common to bubbles. This clearly refers back to the comment about the current high and rising valuations for AGI prospects.
  - kbrkbr 1y ago
    I see that. I just have a hard time seeing how it is related to my question. Euclidean geometry was an "obvious mathematical certainty". Until it wasn't, and we learned that there are no "obvious mathematical certainties". So I wanted to understand what you mean by this concept. But we can leave it. It's not important. No harm meant.
    - d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
      There are mathematical certainties. In this instance we have that all exponentially growing bubbles will necessarily display the property that values grow and at an increasing rate just before the bubble bursts. This is so fundamental that I can't believe you don't see it. You can construct the growth curve out of this very fact alone. Therefore, the simple fact of growing values and increasing rates of growth in values is not determining bubble/non-bubble. In other words, the statement "I know I am not chasing a bubble because valuations are high and growing at an increasing rate" is categorically false because this property is a common indicator of the exact opposite; that you are in an exponentially growing bubble.
      - kbrkbr 1y ago
        Look, neither did I say there are no mathematical certainties, nor did I anywhere argue about the content of what you said. The only thing I said is: there are probably no _obvious_ mathematical certainties in reply to what you said, as the history of mathematics shows with plenty of examples. But it's already too much ink spilled for such a little difference. I reckon now that you use words like "obvious" (or "categorically" in the last reply [1]) as markers of belief strength or something. That's fine, many people do it. [1] related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36808333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36808333
        d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
        > "Look, neither did I say there are no mathematical certainties, nor did I anywhere argue about the content of what you said The only thing I said is: there are probably no _obvious_ mathematical certainties in reply to what you said, as the history of mathematics shows with plenty of examples." There is nothing more obvious and certain mathematically than the fact that exponential growth of bubbles entails increasing valuations and increasing rates of growth in those valuations. I use the word "obvious" quite properly as in "can be read from any graph", or "is contained within the structure or the model". I use categorical because the implied conclusion of the original comment is a categorical error.