eigenket

24 ms·

271.
by eigenket 3y ago
While that's true and Leeds Town Hall does look a fair bit like the picture it's definitely quite significantly smaller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_Town_Hall
272.
by eigenket 3y ago
I mean having a bunch of overweight recruits doesn't sound like a big issue to me? Maybe you need to put them on a diet/exercise regime for a couple of months before they're physically fit enough but that doesn't sound l
273.
by eigenket 3y ago
I don't really understand your point here. If we do discover magnetic monopoles (which would not necessarily be very weak but instead very rare) then we would take the equation Div(B) = 0 And update it to say Div(B) = sigma Where sigma
274.
by eigenket 3y ago
I mean I we found a magnetic monopole then we'd just change that one of Maxwell's equations so it looks like the corresponding electrical equation Div(E) = ρ/ε. It essentially just happens that the thing which correspond to ρ
275.
by eigenket 3y ago
Theoretically they do both. I think the system that the above commenter is alluding to is the House of Lords, where a bunch of unelected "lords" can vote on legislation. The idea is for the lords to be people with particular exper
276.
by eigenket 3y ago
I'm pretty sure the 85 in the corner is the folio number 85 given in the description "Oxford, Bodleian Libraries MSS. Locke c. 25, fol. 85.". I.e. its the page number. On the other hand you may be right about the rest of what
277.
by eigenket 3y ago
The flowers on the right hand side look like daisies and probably like 1-2cm across. The whole thing is probably about 20cm across. Its probably a mole-hill? It looks vaguely like it could be earth displaced from a tunneling devil if you sq
278.
by eigenket 3y ago
I think based on some inexpert googling that what Locke calls "sweet cream" is what a British person today would call "single cream" (or just "cream"). Based on comparing fat content (about 18%) this is roughly
279.
by eigenket 3y ago
I think it mostly makes sense except for the amount of butter. Maybe in the process of clarifying butter back when this was written you'd lose a lot more butter? I don't know if modern butter has changed that much.
280.
by eigenket 3y ago
This is a lot of pancakes to eat by yourself. Just eyeballing the recipe it looks like you're looking at the order of about a kilo of pancakes at the end. If you solo these I think the nutmeg is going to be the least of your worries.
281.
by eigenket 3y ago
I don't want this to come across as insulting, but this message sounds more like someone trying to sell me something than an objective scientist. You can just say no, there is no link (intuitive or not) between geometric algebra and Ba
282.
by eigenket 3y ago
Could you explain what you think Gibbs style vectors have to do with Banach-Tarski or the axiom of choice? As an aside, I'd like to emphasise that geometric algebra gives exactly the same physics outcomes as doing the maths with vect
283.
by eigenket 3y ago
This is very very strongly not a concern for physics. Banach-Tarski and similar "paradoxes" require dividing things up into unmeasurable sets. These sets are pretty wild and aren't ever going to turn up when you're doing
284.
by eigenket 3y ago
That's interesting. I haven't read The Big U, I should pick it up. For me my enjoyment of his books is pretty close to inversely proportional to the amount of weird sex stuff he puts in them. Anathem has none, and I think its one
285.
by eigenket 3y ago
I think the most prescient prediction he made about AI is this from Anathem. The concrete prediction is that the internet will become filled with AI written crap, and that anyone wanting to use it will have to filter out an enormous amount
286.
by eigenket 3y ago
I think that is quite innacurate. He wrote Snow Crash in 1992, if you compare it to Diamond age in 1995 or later stuff like Anathem or Cryptonomicon its pretty obvious his writing changed (in my opinion improved) quite a lot over the years.
287.
by eigenket 3y ago
Yeah I wouldn't expect it to counter such problems. Peer review is by its nature review by other people in the same field. If you have a field where "bogus" methods are being used in thousands of papers then you aren't g
288.
by eigenket 3y ago
That sounds (as I said before) quite specific to the field you found yourself in. That isn't how things work everywhere. For a relatively recent example - in my field of quantum information someone found in the course of reviewing some
289.
by eigenket 3y ago
> Who's going to replicate an experiment that takes a $5 billion particle accelerator? In the case of the LHC, which I assume is what you're talking about, this is why we have 4 pretty much independent detectors around the LHC
290.
by eigenket 3y ago
I guess it depends on the journal. If you're publishing in some low tier or even predatory journal then yeah there might be problems like this with the editor but in good, respected journals the editors usually do their jobs properly.
291.
by eigenket 3y ago
> I've also seen that during peer review a reviewer may give a list of publications they 'suggest' for the literature review, sometimes completely unrelated fields. If you choose not to, you will likely see your paper reje
292.
by eigenket 3y ago
Other people have mentioned that the metallurgy that was known in Britain at the time useful steam engines were developed was dramatically more advanced than what the makers of ancient stuff like the Aeolipile had. A fun fact is that the r
293.
by eigenket 3y ago
I don't really get the love for Nature but here is an example that uses "runtime" in this sense in Nature Computational Science https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-023-00589-x Here is one in Nature Ph
294.
by eigenket 3y ago
My point is that I am a researcher (in quantum information theory) and I've published a couple of papers on quantum computing which talk about algorithmic complexity. In once case I've been told to by an editor to change run time
295.
by eigenket 3y ago
Fine, I edited "most" in my previous comment to "many". There are still plenty of examples (even on the first page) where the "runtime" is used to mean algorithmic complexity https://arxiv.org/a
296.
by eigenket 3y ago
Going on arXiv computer science and searching for the string "runtime" returns 6135 results, many of which seem use it in the sense we're talking about here. https://arxiv.org/search/cs?query=runtime&
297.
by eigenket 3y ago
Run time, runtime and run-time are all commonly used for the thing you want to call run time. None are incorrect. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/runtime
298.
by eigenket 3y ago
I agree there is a bunch of complexity in generalising Kolmogorov complexity to general infinite strings. However I'm not really trying to do that here, all I want is enough to back-up the statement I made before, that the complexity o
299.
by eigenket 3y ago
> The original Kolmogorov complexity is for finite strings. I wrote "Kolmogorov complexity" not "original Kolmogorov complexity" so this isn't particularly relevant. The application of the concept to the infinite
300.
by eigenket 3y ago
I take minor issue with the phrase "correct" here. Thats one way you can do things but its also works completely fine to not do that. Another way of setting these things up has your states be honest elements of L2, and says observ

More ›