Chinjut

62 ms·

781.
by Chinjut 12y ago
What's that you say? Transparent floors? No walls? See https://plus.google.com/photos/+google/albums/61205645517791... (and https://plus.google.com/photos/+google/albums/61
782.
by Chinjut 12y ago
Our species would get killed if we had any empathy for anyone who doesn't fit into the top 1%? Your comment certainly conforms to the attitude projectileboy was lamenting...
783.
by Chinjut 12y ago
Why should I as the programmer have to do different things just because the CPU has to do different things? If the logic of what I want to do is the same in multiple cases, then I only want to write it once and let the compiler figure out w
784.
by Chinjut 12y ago
This seems like... maybe "crankery" isn't the right word, but certainly something overblown in that ballpark. The claim is made "We obtain for the first time an explicit relation for generating the full set P of prime nu
785.
by Chinjut 12y ago
That's different from what is being referred to, which is (very briefly) described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametricity#History . Edit: Ah, I didn't realize that there was an edit involved in the post
786.
by Chinjut 12y ago
I see a lot of people saying, essentially, "I don't care that anybody knows I view porn; that's totally mainstream". And, yeah, I feel the same way. But on reflecting on it, I find there's more nuance to it: I don&#
787.
by Chinjut 12y ago
The complaints are not necessarily directed at individual people who rationally choose careers in finance over other vocations, given the system they live in. The complaints are to a large extent over the fact that our society has been set
788.
by Chinjut 12y ago
FWIW, I believe you intended to say "It's double-negative elimination that doesN'T hold constructively...". (Which is correct, and what I was about to point out until I saw you already did!)
789.
by Chinjut 12y ago
Impressive! Out of curiosity, did you have good reason to immediately suspect it couldn't possibly be true? According to Wikipedia, this question had been considered considered by Perrin himself (way back in 1899), but was only first r
790.
by Chinjut 12y ago
A certain pedantry forces me to point out: Listening to the speech at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzNbfa1QyYg , I find there are two discrepancies from this transcript: "fighter" should read "fighter plane
791.
by Chinjut 12y ago
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. I
792.
by Chinjut 12y ago
Sure there are (in many reasonable senses). Polynomial root extraction just isn't expressible in terms of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and nth roots alone. But that's ok; there's nothing magic about that p
793.
by Chinjut 12y ago
"Ph.D.: expected June 1997." Ah, someone else who didn't finish their doctorate and ended up working for Google instead. We're like kindred spirits, Sergey and I...
794.
by Chinjut 12y ago
As prophesied in the top comment (by user24) right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6248771
795.
by Chinjut 12y ago
I don't think you've caught what I was saying. The GP noted indeed why we should expect the distribution of suitably scaled sample means to converge to the Fourier transform of e^(-x^2/2). I'm saying, it doesn't see
796.
by Chinjut 12y ago
Why is it important for the existence of a CLT type result that the Gaussian be a fixed point of the Fourier transform? Regardless of whether it were or not, we would find that characteristic functions of (suitably scaled) sample means conv
797.
by Chinjut 12y ago
It's also worth noting that what this expression matches are not primes given in decimal notation; rather, the language it accepts is "111...111" with any prime number of 1s. And we know straight-up that no "true" r
798.
by Chinjut 12y ago
It doesn't matter that the Gaussian is its own Fourier transform, as such, does it? It's just that, whatever it is that Fourier transforms into the Gaussian (1 - t^2/2n)^n, that's what sample means converge to. [I suppos
799.
by Chinjut 12y ago
I don't have to imagine that anyone prefers occasionally playing the lottery to never playing the lottery. I can see it in action any time I please, and while some of the people doing so may be laboring under delusions as to the quanti
800.
by Chinjut 12y ago
If some people do, in fact, prefer situations in which there is a slim chance of tremendous windfall and large chance of small loss to guaranteed status quo, who is the economist to tell them "No, no, this is incompatible with the theo
801.
by Chinjut 12y ago
You are happy with insurance because you see it as reasonable to prefer the risk profile it offers over that of forgoing it. But one might just as well also prefer the risk profile offered by a lottery ticket over that of forgoing it. Why n
802.
by Chinjut 12y ago
You don't have to have bad math skills to play the lottery. For example, I am a mathematician who has on occasion chosen to purchase lottery tickets. And I see nothing at all irrational about this.
803.
by Chinjut 12y ago
I hate the argument that, on the grounds that the aggregate money spent on lottery tickets is typically larger than the aggregate money paid out on lottery tickets, purchasing a lottery ticket is inherently irrational. The same is true of i
804.
by Chinjut 12y ago
Sure. This doesn't seem so surprising to me; after all, the number of possible answers you may choose from for the question "Which bit do you want to flip?" is precisely the same as the number of possible answers you may choo
805.
by Chinjut 12y ago
Hm... solvability of the problem for a board of size n is equivalent to labeling the nodes of the n-cube with n colors in such a way that any node's neighbors take on all n colors (thus, each node will have one neighbor of each color).
806.
by Chinjut 12y ago
Well, augmented with a theoretical infinite memory device, and granted immortality (protection against senility, etc.), sure. Do you really doubt humans can carry out "Look up within this finite table what to do, based on the current s
807.
by Chinjut 12y ago
I worry that justifying the desire for a life outside of work in terms of "productivity" already concedes too much. Even if my short-week productivity doesn't match my 80-hour week productivity, I'll still prefer the sho
808.
by Chinjut 12y ago
It threw me for a bit that x here refers to the distance from the origin, whether or not that distance is leftwards or rightwards. Anyway, the function's being described isn't really the way water waves actually work, is it? Surel
809.
by Chinjut 12y ago
> Most people work because they want to live in an expensive neighborhood So, to put a roof over their head. Hey, no one said they had to go for the cheapest roof! :)
810.
by Chinjut 12y ago
It doesn't mean anything to compare a constant to phi unless that constant is itself dimensionless. What low level physical constants (and relations between them and phi) do you have in mind?

More ›