Sniffnoy

36 ms·

511.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
OK, sorry, but I'm not following what you're saying here. (Also, this comment seems needlessly hostile?) You seem to be making a bunch of assumptions that you haven't made explicit. I suspect we're simply talking abou
512.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
I see, interesting. Yeah at that point you have more structure there. But yeah that's just like... two overlapping ring structures? Hm. <shrug>
513.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
> For addition this is correct, I don't believe it's correct for multiplication because of the negative integers. That is, the ring described by signed n-bit signed integers under multiplication and addition is not isomorphic t
514.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
I'm not sure how this is relevant? For addition, multiplication, and subtraction, it is indeed modular arithmetic. For anything involving division it's altogether different, but, I took that as being outside what's being di
515.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
The commenter above you isn't talking about IEEE754's abs() function, but rather the code from the OP, except applied to floats rather than ints.
516.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
I wouldn't call that a nitpick; I'd call referring to these a serious misuse of terminology! Finite fields are altogether quite different. There are finite fields of of order 2^k for each k, but they work quite differently from
517.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
I'm assuming you mean piracy rather than privateering?
518.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
"Assuming the continuum hypothesis for the sake of this notation" is being deliberately obfuscatory, encouraging confusion, and requiring other mathematicians to do extra work to translate your results to the more general context.
519.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Unless guerrilla's comment was edited and you're referring to an older version, guerrilla's comment is completely correct. Aleph_1 doesn't refer to uncountable cardinals in general, it's a specific uncountable car
520.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
This is incorrect, and a common misconception. Aleph_1 refers to the second-smallest infinite cardinal, whether that's equal to 2^(aleph_0) or not. (Aleph_1 is also equal, as has been mentioned, to the number of countable ordinals.) T
521.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
This seems to be part of a more general phenomenon of businesses being run by people who don't know that area of business, and who direct all focus away from the quality of the product, doing things such as cutting costs even when the
522.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
The closest thing to the "indoor tree-climbing gym" that I can think of might be the City Museum in St. Louis.
523.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
"Double-odd" is a confusing term. Makes it sound like it's odd in two ways. A more common term for a number that's 2 mod 4 is "singly even" (because 2 only divides it once).
524.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
But you can logically group C and D, and then it's not so complex, I would say.
525.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Reposting this comment (with some expansion) from elsewhere in the thread, but I disagree that the second one is spaghetti. B is once again a while(input == 0) loop, that exits to D. D and C together form a while(input == 1) loop, that exi
526.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
I don't think the "living nightmare" control flow graph is that bad? B is once again a while(input == 0) loop, that exits to D. D and C together form a while(input == 1) loop, that exits to A. And A is again a switch betwee
527.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Since the post doesn't explain it, I'll note that while RSQRTSS is approximate reciprocal square root, RCPSS is just approximate reciprocal.
528.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
I see, thanks!
529.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Ah, thanks, I missed that. So "Coalton" from "CLTon", presumably "Common Lisp" + "MLTon"; that just leaves the question of where "MLTon" comes from. "ML" from ML, yes, but whence
530.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
So, why is it named "Coalton"?
531.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
> Wait, a functor is just a pure unary function? And an endofunctor is just one of those where the argument type and return type are the same? No. I don't know why the article talks about ordinary functions on values as if they&#x2
532.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
This links to a comment on the blog post, rather than the blog post itself. The link should be https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/how-strong...
533.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Huh, I assumed this was going to be palindromes ignoring the gaps between letters... like, I was thinking that "we" would be counted as a palindrome, but by the standards of this post it isn't.
534.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Well, sure, like I said, it's ambitious; there's no guarantee this is going to actually work. But it's not like the people working on it haven't thought about the problem. They have an interesting approach to the neutr
535.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
I mean, that's ITER. If fusion is ready soon it'll likely be via ARC. Commonwealth Fusion Systems is aiming for SPARC (demonstration reactor) in 2025, ARC (commercial reactor!) in 2030. That's obviously an, um, ambitious go
536.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
But the whole point is that the fox doesn't know actual distance, it only knows triangle distance.
537.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
I don't, sorry. I'm not really a logician, just a mathematician who thinks the foundations are worth understanding. :) I don't know what proper references on this material would be.
538.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Getting a theory that proves its own consistency isn't what's being discussed here. What's being discussed here is just weakening a theory to remove a particular inconsistency after an inconsistency is found. Trying to make
539.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
I mean, the other way around is also true, but the other way around is obvious. Obviously going from a weaker logic to a stronger logic can't eliminate contradictions. What's surprising is that in this particular case (the Pean
540.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
No. Sn+Sm would be n+m+2, while S(n+m) is n+m+1.

More ›