drdeca

43 ms·

601.
by drdeca 3y ago
I was thinking that if secure timestamping could be done quickly enough, it might be possible to both bound the event by the future-light-cones of the spacetime points the GPS satellites sent the signed signal, and the past-light-cones of
602.
by drdeca 3y ago
Gödel’s theorems don’t imply inconsistency for all large systems (unless “large” is taken to mean something strange), just for systems which are both not super-weak in what they can say, and complete (or if they have their own consistenc
603.
by drdeca 3y ago
I think the first one at least was rather funny.
604.
by drdeca 3y ago
Why shouldn’t an electron be a point particle? (To the extent that anything satisfying the uncertainty principle can be I mean) Why couldn’t a theory of quantum gravity remove the need for such renormalization without making electrons not p
605.
by drdeca 3y ago
If only GPS signals were cryptographically signed
606.
by drdeca 3y ago
Sometimes I use ellipses when I start out writing one sentence, but then decide I want to say something else instead, interrupting what I was initially going to write with something that contradicts it. I suppose this is kind of silly, beca
607.
by drdeca 3y ago
I don't know why you contrast "incentives and legislation" with "taxes"? What kind of legislation are you thinking of, which would produce incentives to reduce the pollution, if not to make it so that one profits mo
608.
by drdeca 3y ago
I was mostly referring to the "you have created a comforting narrative to explain it" (but also, a little bit, as a joke, kind of referring to the "you are also not psychic" part, but only as a joke)
609.
by drdeca 3y ago
While to some degree I think I’ve had somewhat similar experiences, at other times (when I was a teen) when I’ve specifically tried to think-without-words, I thought I had, and then shortly afterwards either realized or thought I had realiz
610.
by drdeca 3y ago
Are you not also making assumptions about other minds by saying this?
611.
by drdeca 3y ago
the verifier in the MIP* setup/definition is assumed to be limited to a polynomial amount of computation.
612.
by drdeca 3y ago
Huh? Assuming I understand your comment correctly, that is, not what that paper is showing. That paper is showing that if the verifier has polynomial time computational power, with two provers who each have unlimited computational power,
613.
by drdeca 3y ago
I notice that in this paper, some of the new weights can be initialized arbitrarily, and only some of them have to be zero. In the Gopher paper, were all the new weights zero, or only the ones that this paper calls for being zero? I would g
614.
by drdeca 3y ago
Do I understand correctly that they are showing, "if we increase the size of these tensors along these directions, by padding them with zeros, it does not change the inference behavior of the network."? If so, I'm.. kind of s
615.
by drdeca 3y ago
I had heard the parts about "probably wouldn't be a big deal for CPU performance" and "probably wouldn't be great for energy storage", but I hadn't heard the point about "we use less efficient materia
616.
by drdeca 3y ago
Looking at Wayback Machine, it appears that this book has existed (with this title, at this url) since at least October 2011, and that that version does not appear to have referenced anything with the title "Learn Vim the Hard Way&quot
617.
by drdeca 3y ago
Ah, I hadn’t read it as `font-size` but as “font-size”. My mistake.
618.
by drdeca 3y ago
Oh, just talking about on webpages. Ok.
619.
by drdeca 3y ago
depends on the hyperparameters, and the architecture (and probably the task)
620.
by drdeca 3y ago
Can you say what that says about the behavior described with the modular arithmetic in the article? And, in particular, how to interpret the fact that different hyperparameters determined whether runs, obtaining equally high accuracy on the
621.
by drdeca 3y ago
“0 is not a probability”
622.
by drdeca 3y ago
I thought there was just one video of it completely levitating, and that that one was somewhat questionable (having an unclear source, and being deleted by original poster)? Do you have a link to more than one showing complete levitation?
623.
by drdeca 3y ago
> We already know that no theory is complete and perfect, so we can say the same thing about any theory. If you mean this as an appeal to Gödel’s incompleteness results, the things those show can’t happen aren’t the same kinds of things
624.
by drdeca 3y ago
Ah, so it isn't so much that they don't need to be entangled, so much as, describing them as entangled isn't a good way to frame it, because all the electrons (and the rest of the material) will be all entangled with each-oth
625.
by drdeca 3y ago
Are you sure? I mean, not the second part. That part matches my impression of things. But them not being entangled. My understanding is that collectively, the pair of electrons acts like a boson, unlike an individual electron, which allows
626.
by drdeca 3y ago
Yes. The theory that explains the better understood ones works based on the idea of "cooper pairs", where there are, aiui, entangled pairs of electrons which are in a lower energy state due to how they are entangled, and where in
627.
by drdeca 3y ago
I’m not an atheist. I’m a Christian. I don’t have an objection to bringing up teleology. Are you asking if I can, (without sneaking in a reference to meaning) explain what a representation of something is, or specifically what a representat
628.
by drdeca 3y ago
I said the accusations weren't interesting, not that you weren't interesting. I'm sure you have plenty of interesting things to say on other topics, and the other parts of what you are saying on this topic are (clearly) i
629.
by drdeca 3y ago
If a process has in it a place where a representation of a goal is stored, and for a wide range of goals, if represented in this format, if stored in this location, the process would tend to effectively achieve the goal, then it seems like
630.
by drdeca 3y ago
And, these non-negative real numbers, which are these homs, are “hom objects”, so regarded as objects in “the category with as objects the non-negative real numbers, and as morphisms, the ‘being greater than or equal to’ “ ? Is that right?

More ›