drdeca

25 ms·

391.
by drdeca 2y ago
What do you mean by “visible when you look for them”? Like, with light? Does gravitational lensing count as “visible” to you?
392.
by drdeca 2y ago
By definition, you say? By what definition? I don’t see why something would need to be entirely coherent to be useful. If you have a program which, when given a statement, assigns a value between 0 and 1, to be interpreted as if it were a p
393.
by drdeca 2y ago
This apparently currently only supports chrome. I hope it will support non-chrome browsers in the future.
394.
by drdeca 2y ago
Well, is “responding to someone saying ‘if people (“just”) do X, then Z” really “spontaneous”? Like, presumably the person saying something like that at least thinks that the people listening would prefer Z to be the case. If they are right
395.
by drdeca 2y ago
It isn’t clear to me why the encoding of the natural numbers would come up. I would have thought that some statement about the natural numbers would involve some type, considered as the type of natural numbers, which I suppose if you constr
396.
by drdeca 2y ago
I would think that asking if two proofs are equivalent would be analogous to “do these two expressions of type integer evaluate to the same value?” ?
397.
by drdeca 2y ago
There are multiple values of type integer? I don’t see why we should truncate the types representing propositions so that they have at most one element each.
398.
by drdeca 2y ago
A proof is not a statement that something is true, but a demonstration that it is true. Are you familiar with the proofs-as-programs idea? The uh, something isomorphism? Idr the name. Not all programs that implement a function are the same.
399.
by drdeca 2y ago
1) coordinate acceleration from gravity doesn’t make one not in an inertial reference frame? 2) Why would something have to be in an inertial reference frame in order for inertial reference frames to “exist”? Doesn’t make sense to me. In an
400.
by drdeca 2y ago
The “everyone will not just X” issue is, I think, less of an obstacle when you don’t need the “everyone” part. If “Y% of people just did X, then things would be Y% • Z amount better” is a much better plan than “if everyone just did X, then
401.
by drdeca 2y ago
You say that “if the spacetime is moving, there’s local curvature”? Then, in flat spacetime, as there is no curvature, then (by the contrapositive) there is no “movement of spacetime”? But if some stuff is not moving in one inertial frame
402.
by drdeca 2y ago
Sorry, I was unclear. The contradiction was that if you could take chunks like that it would be moving in the other frame, but Lorentz invariance says that flat spacetime has the same structure in different frames, and so wouldn’t be moving
403.
by drdeca 2y ago
Say you have flat (Minkowski) spacetime. Suppose you could talk about a chunk of space/spacetime in such a way. Take some frame, and in that reference, pick a region of space. Where is it a bit later? Ok. So, you consider it to have no
404.
by drdeca 2y ago
What makes it "stuff"? Stuff/substances, as I think of it, has/have a velocity, etc. . In this sense, spacetime isn't a "substance"/isn't "stuff". Stuff/substances is where you can
405.
by drdeca 2y ago
I don’t see any good reason to be attached to using the word “aether” to describe [actual things that have been found].
406.
by drdeca 2y ago
Remember the principle of conservation of expected probability. P[X] = P[X|Y] * P[Y] + P[X|!Y] * P[!Y] . If P[X|Y] > P[X] and P[Y] is strictly between 0 and 1, then P[X|!Y] < P[X] . So, if X is “dark matter is some kind of matter that
407.
by drdeca 2y ago
The Pontryagin dual of a discrete (locally compact abelian) group is a compact group, and the Pontryagin dual of a compact abelian group is a discrete (locally compact abelian) group… Hm. Momentum space being compact does seem weird.. Of co
408.
by drdeca 2y ago
I feel like the former could probably be avoided if they use an ORWL-PC-like thing to ensure that an on-device generated private key can’t be extracted, and use some kind of like, video recording from multiple cameras to demonstrate that th
409.
by drdeca 2y ago
> Or to find a dozen authors who have inconceivably and independently created identical manuscripts. So, kind of like, or so it is said, the septaguint?
410.
by drdeca 2y ago
I don’t think that’s really what Occam’s razor says. If one’s goal is to use ML stuff to try to produce new useful theorems, it seems useful towards that goal to come up with a numeric heuristic for how useful a new theorem is. And, stating
411.
by drdeca 2y ago
Oh, yes, I meant predict a value we had already measured at the time the "prediction" was made. I should have made that clear in my original comment. I would add it now except that the editing time has run out. Maybe I should have
412.
by drdeca 2y ago
I don’t think the mistake made is exactly an ad hom fallacy? I agree with the rest of your comment though.
413.
by drdeca 2y ago
I’ve heard that it also predicts at very low precision, some values that are practically measurable, and, unsurprisingly for how little precision these predictions have, these predictions are correct (I.e. the experimental results are wit
414.
by drdeca 2y ago
Sorry, I don’t understand this point. What’s the interpretation of your previous message (in light of that) which makes it true?
415.
by drdeca 2y ago
Eh? (P(X|Y)>P(X) iff P(Y|X)>P(Y)) whenever all the relevant probabilities (P(X), P(Y), P(X and Y), etc.) are strictly positive and strictly less than 1. Now, X might be much stronger evidence for Y than Y is for X, but if Y is evidenc
416.
by drdeca 2y ago
Why did I imagine that this would be about two shapes that are merely topologically n-balls, each having part of their boundary be incident with one of the two hemi(n-1)-spheres of the boundary of an n-ball (and otherwise not intersecting
417.
by drdeca 2y ago
Is any of what he’s saying here, something he hasn’t essentially already said before? The parts of this which were a little surprising to me (e.g. the bit about comparing time to heat, and the bit about running out of steps to do at an even
418.
by drdeca 2y ago
I think the source of the confusion might have been the use of the word "any". If you had said "like a muscle", that would have been unambiguous, implying that it isn't one but is only being compared to one. Wher
419.
by drdeca 2y ago
“In the Phaedrus, writing is the pharmakon that the trickster god Theuth offers, the toxin and remedy in one. With writing, man will no longer forget; but he will also no longer think.” When I have to navigate to somewhere I haven’t been be
420.
by drdeca 2y ago
I think it was https://aclanthology.org/2022.tacl-1.49/ But am now thinking I may have made a mistake, with this showing they can be simulated in TC^0 when I thought the result was both that and that they can simula

More ›