cybernautique

38 ms·

151.
by cybernautique 5y ago
Good point, thank you! That's a very intuitive counterexample.
152.
by cybernautique 5y ago
> the best fitting generalizations/abstractions in mathematics and physics also fit the most specific cases Out of curiosity, how does this differ from the criteria of choosing the assumption which makes the equations easier to work
153.
by cybernautique 5y ago
Listen guy, you're the one that called it a theory to begin with. I didn't make any claims, and you're right that there's no physics in what I wrote: I was interested in the ontology of fractional types, however and wher
154.
by cybernautique 5y ago
I appreciate your input. I don't think that's unreasonable. However, this "theory" I proposed wasn't essentially about physics; it was ontological in nature, encroaching more on the field of CS's type theory as
155.
by cybernautique 5y ago
https://www.quantamagazine.org/fractons-the-weirdest-matter-... I'm not conversant enough with physics to do more with this article than say "wow, that's cool!" and let my mind run into all sorts of fun
156.
by cybernautique 5y ago
I'm not very knowledgeable of physics, but my intuition is that a fractional type should just be a type that falls between the characteristics of two integer types. So if A is the electromagnetic force and B is the strong nuclear force
157.
by cybernautique 5y ago
Thanks, great breakdown! Where did you source this from?
158.
by cybernautique 5y ago
I think there ought to be a data/interface divide. Social media companies that service more than 50 million Americans should be subject to this divide. Therefore, split Facebook in twain: one of its halves shall be Face, which is the w
159.
by cybernautique 5y ago
This is an odd question. There are "losers" and "winners" with the state of any market. Currently, those of us that prefer repairability are the "losers" in the smartphone market. I therefore put your question