ajkjk

6 ms·

91.
by ajkjk 3mo ago
Part of the problem is that the difficulty curve becomes, like, superexponential if you try to do the actual math. Fairly elementary atoms require the full theory of quantum mechanics to justify rigorously, and anything more complicated tha
92.
by ajkjk 3mo ago
JS was popular despite its lack of types, not because of them. If a typed language had been bundled into browsers from the beginning then we would not be shimming types into it with TS today (although I'm sure there would be other diff
93.
by ajkjk 3mo ago
guess so. I still don't think their position is serious, but, that's just me. was amusing to come back hours later and find out whether this comment ended up more upvoted or more downvoted, it was oscillating all day...
94.
by ajkjk 3mo ago
I think you have missed my point. Both are defined to integrate to one, over different measures.
95.
by ajkjk 3mo ago
It is the right question to ask. The idea that moral questions should have a market value is itself a moral failing, so assuming you want moral principles to rule over the design of your economy (which.. you'd better; otherwise slavery
96.
by ajkjk 3mo ago
i could be wrong, but it was enforced as the default at several places I worked, and most editors now have the option of the tab key inserting spaces to bridge the gap. (I don't care about the actual debate; just, I thought I had notic
97.
by ajkjk 3mo ago
completely agree. but I felt like even then it was clear that types were a good idea and the implementations were not. For instance I started programming on Java 4 or 5 and the types were pretty bad---but still it was obviously the right
98.
by ajkjk 3mo ago
I feel like I see all of these debates far less than I used to? Well I don't see anyone arguing about vim and emacs anymore at all, and spaces have mostly won over tabs, and static typing has mostly won over dynamic, with the holdouts
99.
by ajkjk 3mo ago
well, as I said, I don't take them seriously :p
100.
by ajkjk 3mo ago
Some people would call it a Kronecker delta instead, but imo they are exactly the same concept. The Kronecker delta is the indicator for a single value, like 1_{x=0}, while the Dirac delta is the indicator for a single 'dx' partit
101.
by ajkjk 3mo ago
I don't think ... serious people... argued that. That's a bit hyperbolic so I'm sure I'm wrong, but I have an ace: if you point me at very smart people who argued against types I'm gonna say that they weren't s
102.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
If you want to be detailed about it, https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1qjafcd/medical_exam... talks about the whole report; that sarcoidosis was the actual cause is speculative, and the "subs
103.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
The implications are not significant..? the real world is messy enough that this will not ever apply.
104.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
that's fair, I was interpreting them differently.
105.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
This is also my stance. The fact that large numbers of people spend large amounts of publicly-funded time exploring what are essentially abstract puzzles is bizarre and not that different from, like, cloistered religious devotees who are su
106.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
Of the three claims you just made, two are clearly false and the third is probably also... You can prove something is created by AI by e.g. showing the transcripts, especially from the vendor side. You cannot prove that something isn't
107.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
people are very fond of it here -> there's no point arguing against it here? Backwards logic. If they're fond of it then they're the people to be arguing against, no?
108.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
Meh. I'm fine with trying to rename things if it feels justified. And the more obscure the thing, the easier it is to rename in principle. Maybe the better name will help it be less obscure. But of course whether it works is proportion
109.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
I don't think that argument is actually true? You can refactor for purely aesthetic reasons and it may well turn out to help. Maybe you don't even know, going in, what the goal is; just that the way it works now isn't good an
110.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
I happen to think that novel facts and theorems and proofs are way overrated. If you find a new fact it just goes into the giant pile of facts that are sitting around uselessly. The useful progress in math is comes from "refactoring&qu
111.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
True, I guess you can just 'curry' exponentiation and say that's a baseless power. I couldn't find a clean notation for it so I gave up..
112.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
glad you liked it I wonder if we should really just call them... vectors? Like the thing that torsors do, being defined only relative to a choice of origin in some space / group, is exactly what displacement vectors do. So really they
113.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
The two should be the same up to possibly some factors of k! depending on your definitions. Just as an example, suppose you have two multivectors (abc) and (xyz) with all the vectors orthogonal (for simplicity). The geometric product (abc)(
114.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
Eh. If you can read Hestenes or the Cambridge papers without some red flags going off, then this is just a subjective thing you're not gonna understand and we'd best not try to litigate it :p (more extreme examples can be found on
115.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
I think of displacement vectors and position vectors as having different "types". Position vectors are geometric objects whose meaning comes from whatever physical system you're studying (this way of thinking is generally use
116.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
Well, I think my points in the parent article here do stand (I'm aware that you do not). The fact that there is a good interpretation of the geometric product in some cases does not obviate the fact that everyone's writing crappy
117.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
Interesting, it did not occur to me of those as two instances of the same phenomenon. Although I still find the complex analytic one hard to think about.
118.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
I do know about torsors actually but I didn't think to link it from there. I guess I don't find the term very useful; it feels like things are still hard to think about even after you know it's a torsor!---but also, I think I
119.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
That comes from exterior algebra on its own, it's the k'th exterior power of the metric. Best not to conflate that with GA (unless I'm misunderstanding what you're talking about).
120.
by ajkjk 4mo ago
I completely agree, incidentally... And I have come to see this more clearly since writing the article, in part due to talking to you. Maybe I should update it accordingly. I've been meaning to write a followup where I explain this vie

More ›