3 ms·
The thing with cranks is that there is really nothing to criticize, the words just don't make any sense - terminology is misused or invented and not explained,
by stiff 13y ago
The thing with cranks is that there is really nothing to criticize, the words just don't make any sense - terminology is misused or invented and not explained, formalism is introduced without apparent reason, established best practices for communication are not followed (like stating your objectives and conclusions from your work) and so forth. I mean, what the hell is this supposed to mean I can't even imagine:
Definition 1.
A rule is a decision-making heuristic that operates under a broad set of circumstances. Unlike a theorem, which depends on a specific (and closed) set of assumptions, it holds across a broad range of environments which is precisely the point. In that sense it is stronger than a theorem for decision-making.
This is outright nonsense, if he doesn't understand what a theorem is, how can he possibly understand Lebesgue integration and functional analysis?
- oskarth 13y agoHis attitude on academica and proofs are different from most contemporary researchers/scholars, something that he has talked about extensively in his books and other writings. Being well-read in the classics and spending a lot of his time on the trade floor probably has something to do with it. As hackers I think this attitude isn't that far off, when it comes to the hacker/compsci "divide". While I see your point about the quote, I think his intent of the definition is very clear. If you are curious and want to know what he means by something, he's very active on both facebook and twitter. As a specific example, you have probably heard of the saying "premature optimization is the root of all evil". This is a rule which holds in pretty much any domain. It's obviously not a theorem, but you can still talk about the payoff of the rule. This is what Taleb means when he says "probability in the real world" - it's all about payoffs and consequences.
- stiff 13y agoCan you give me an example of a rule that is true ("holds across a broad range of environments") and the truth of which does not depend on a "specific (and closed) set of assumptions"? How does one arrive at "rules" like this using mathematics? I think that's quite a revolution in the foundations of mathematics...
- tensor 13y agoI haven't read the book, but your justifications here send up as many red flags as the quote you are addressing. First, a proof is either valid or it is not. You cannot have a "different view" on this. Second, there is no hacker/compsci divide. Terms like 'the real world' are used solely to demean the work of another person and offer nothing useful. Your example is especially frightening. You cannot build proofs on weak rules-of-thumb. In fact, it is difficult to even quantify values surrounding heuristics like the one you give. There simply is no valid data.
- Tycho 13y agoWhat was wrong with his statement about theorems?