denotational

9 ms·

91.
by denotational 3y ago
What would the regulatory enforcement look like? If I develop a new connector, how do I get the regulator to start enforcing that everyone who uses it is following my standard? What happens when I find a way to extend the specification in a
92.
by denotational 3y ago
Patent the connector and enforce it aggressively.
93.
by denotational 3y ago
> new law to prevent use of the physical arrangement Even if the connector itself were patented?
94.
by denotational 3y ago
This is the sort of thing that almost (but not quite) pushes me to support mandatory certification (enforced by patents/other IP protections) for consumer devices that use a familiar connector like USB. Consumers shouldn’t need to
95.
by denotational 3y ago
> It isn't useful in mathematics because it is a contradiction in terms: if "neither of the two compared entities is greater or lesser than the other" then they are equal. That’s only true for a total order ; there are ma
96.
by denotational 3y ago
> Gödel's incompleteness theorems, Cantor's diagonalization proof, Turing's halting problem If you’re looking for a generalisation, these are all instances of Lawvere’s Fixed Point Theorem, although my grasp of category th
97.
by denotational 3y ago
F is a forcing function, not the resultant force. It’s often arranged this way with all the derivatives on one side (as opposed to having the resultant force, ma, on one side of the equality by itself) so that it matches the general form of
98.
by denotational 3y ago
Proving properties hold over sets of infinite cardinality is fairly routine in mathematics. We know that not every Turing Machine can be “solved”, because this would give us an oracle for HALT, but there are machines that can be. A trivial
99.
by denotational 3y ago
From what I remember, Krste has advocated for compressed instruction sets with macro-op fusion in the uarch front-end for a while, and the design of the RV ISA is heavily inspired by this, so it’s not particularly surprising that SiFive (i.
100.
by denotational 3y ago
I pretty much only work with Xilinx/AMD parts these days, and, at least on US/US+, they do indeed all have a CE on all the flops (unless there are undocumented degenerate cells with missing features).
101.
by denotational 3y ago
> However, the enable input is a fairly obscure feature for a flip-flop component; most flip-flop chips have a clock input, but not an enable. The clock-enable is actually really common for flops in an integrated circuit; it might have
102.
by denotational 3y ago
I don’t think it’s the lingo/shorthand but rather the fact that some of the sentences don’t parse at all. It’s possibly to figure out what he meant, but it requires significantly more time than if the sentences were constructed “correc
103.
by denotational 3y ago
There are sentences in this email that don’t parse at all; it’s still possible to guess what he probably meant, since humans are highly adept at error recovery for natural languages, but it takes significantly more time.
104.
by denotational 3y ago
Whilst the first movement is fairly technically straightforward, the last movement is pretty tricky and requires solid technique; I certainly wouldn’t characterise it as “easy” even if it’s not the hardest piece in the repertoire. If anythi
105.
by denotational 3y ago
> The “or better” is doing a lot of the heavy lifting here. I disagree, I think I could have skipped the "or better" without making a substantive change to my point. Is your argument that the presence of HFT participants (or re
106.
by denotational 3y ago
> HFT refer to a very specific trading hack Maybe 10 years ago, but these days (outside of very specific markets) most of the big “HFT”s are really doing quantitative trades or market making. > that is not available to general public
107.
by denotational 3y ago
> but to my knowledge the vast majority of us do not have any choice in who fills an order Why on earth do you care who fills your order? If you place a GTC/Day limit order, it will fill at the price you deem fair, or better. If you
108.
by denotational 3y ago
Usually when people claim that HFT strategies “front-run” they are talking about aggressor/taker strategies that are trying to shave off every nanosecond of latency to increase the chance of a fill at the best possible price. Because t
109.
by denotational 3y ago
> Btw, a "tick" in trading is the minimum up/down movement of an asset (e.g. 0.25 points on NQ, or 0.01 on TSLA). This is true, but the term is overloaded: if I say "the exchange slid the price one tick to comply with
110.
by denotational 3y ago
Can you explain how "dark pools lead to front-running and worse prices for customers"? I would agree that the price discovery works best when liquidity is lit up on a single CLOB, but claims about HFT leading to front-running or
111.
by denotational 3y ago
> Why? I’m not the GP, but I agree with the sentiment. Clock speed alone is a spectacularly bad metric to use for a summary result regarding relative performance of different CPUs. If one wants to assess performance on a workload of inte
112.
by denotational 3y ago
It’s meant to be humorous, there are footnotes explaining some of the jokes.
113.
by denotational 3y ago
You said: > truth being relative only to ZFC is the standard mathematical foundation I think this is at odds with: > most mathematicians have a sense of truth that is not bound to any axiom system Re.: > You literally just said tha
114.
by denotational 3y ago
Working , or at least claiming to work, in ZFC is fairly standard, but that doesn’t make it the definition of mathematical truth. As a sibling comment mentioned, most mathematicians have a sense of truth that is not bound to any axiom sy
115.
by denotational 3y ago
I think we're understanding the phrase "true in all models" in different ways. I understand it to mean: "true in all structures compatible with the language". On the other hand, I think you understand it to mean: &q
116.
by denotational 3y ago
> What is the standard model of ZFC? (or ZF?) The standard model that most set theorists have in mind is something like the Von Neumann Universe, V. Note that this is a proper class, so it's not a structure as usually considered in
117.
by denotational 3y ago
> Believing in standard mathematics basically means that you can not believe in absolute truth. I agree that if one follows an axiomatic approach strictly and consider "truth" to be a shorthand for "provable from in some l
118.
by denotational 3y ago
I don’t think my position is contradictory: I believe that (non-technical, unqualified/alone) “true” is a property that exists independently of whether we are able to formally prove something in some kind of logic. This is because we a
119.
by denotational 3y ago
> Thus, the question is what is the implied context? I claim that this context consists of commonly agreed upon axioms. If I understand correctly, you claim it is a mental model. As I mentioned in a sibling comment, I dispute your claim
120.
by denotational 3y ago
For some reason the "reply" buttons past a certain level of nesting were missing for me, but that appears no longer to be the case, so I'm moving a previous comment here The notion of relative validity is just semantic entai

More ›