nyssos

10 ms·

91.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Indeed, 99% of pure math is non-constructive ("there exists a group such that", "the algorithm converges in O(N) steps") Almost all mathematicians work with classical logic, but that doesn't mean that they alwa
92.
by nyssos 3y ago
No, the analogue of competition math here is writing programs to solve leetcode problems: they emphasize quickly and reliably applying known tools, not developing new ones.
93.
by nyssos 3y ago
Yes, Carta has tens of thousands of customers.
94.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Much of mathematics is a formal affair of making arguments to satisfy necessary and sufficient conditions. Some areas have a formalist culture like this (descriptive set theory seems to, for instance, though that might just be what it
95.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Many universities have both Math and Applied Math departments. Why have both unless the mathematicians in the Math department don't want to work on applications? "Applied Mathematics" as a field is not literally "ma
96.
by nyssos 3y ago
It comes from leftist roots in that Nick Land has (or at one point seemed to have; he's principally a shitposter so who knows) a roughly Marxist view of capitalism as a runaway optimization process only incidentally aligned with the in
97.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Or that he didn't mean that literally he is the best in the world? Obviously not, but I think OP does sincerely think he's smart enough that he should stand out as exceptional to most of the people he meets - and I think he&#
98.
by nyssos 3y ago
> However. I feel constantly discriminated against and treated like I am stupider than I am. And when people listen to me talk, they get incredibly threatened. It has taken me years to understand that being around me and listening to me
99.
by nyssos 3y ago
> I am still profoundly confused about what the 'tactics' truly are. They're macros: a `tactic a` is (after sanding off the implementation details) a function tactic_state -> Either (tactic_state, error) (tactic_s
100.
by nyssos 3y ago
You've just moved the point where we make the arbitrary choice to here: > You can interpret "A or B" as a set union and "A and B" as a set intersection. {True, False, Or, And} and {False, True, And, Or} are two d
101.
by nyssos 3y ago
> make use of constructs that are easier to make "obviously correct". i.e sequential/blocking code styles vs async/callback styles. I agree with the overall sentiment but I don't think this is a good example. If
102.
by nyssos 3y ago
The other replies are massively overcomplicating things. A monoid is - a set `X` - together with an associative binary operation (let's call it `+`) - and an element (`0`) such that `a + 0 = 0 + a = a` for all elements `a` in `X`. Mono
103.
by nyssos 3y ago
I wouldn't worry about language-level support at the moment: there aren't as far as I know any mature implementations yet, and even if there were libraries are usually better for learning purposes. Personally I would recommend Has
104.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Not to mention you need monadic and nonmonadic versions of every higher order function (or so it feels like) - map / mapM This is more a weakness of Haskell's standard library (which is despite its reputation not very friendl
105.
by nyssos 3y ago
> even if we use them in static languages how effects would be intended to be used there. There's not much that can be said about how effects, in general, are intended to be used. Algebraic effects subsume basically every control fl
106.
by nyssos 3y ago
> I don't quite understand, let's say I have a bunch of effects in my code, all depending on one another. Will that make a mess? It depends entirely on what those effects and dependencies actually are. If you really want to, yo
107.
by nyssos 3y ago
> The extra column next to the one I'm reading introduces a lot of visual noise Papers are generally not read start to finish in one go: there's lots of rereading and jumping back and forth between key parts, and anything that
108.
by nyssos 3y ago
> the present must agree with boundary conditions in the future. This is true but it's not really what's meant by backwards causation here. The specific thing you need is for what happens from times (-ε, ε) to depend on what wi
109.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Ultimately if the universe is deterministic, that must mean that everything that happens is predictable from the initial conditions of the universe. This is still not superdeterminism. The superdeterminist claim is a statistical one: y
110.
by nyssos 3y ago
Collapse is when you go from a generic quantum state to an eigenstate of a given measurement operator. The disagreement is about whether this is an objective feature of reality, an artifact of semiclassical approximation, or not a real phys
111.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Why would belief that we are just agents responding predictably to stimuli imply that one would not respond predictably to stimuli? This is determinism, not superdeterminism. Superdeterminism claims that the state of any system you mea
112.
by nyssos 3y ago
We don't. What we know is that we can't have all of 1. locality (no backwards causation / FTL information transfer) 2. determinism 3. counterfactual definiteness (unperformed measurements still have single def
113.
by nyssos 3y ago
> "Types" is just one form of, in many languages quite limited, specs. That's the "Curry types" perspective described in the article, yes. "Church types" are syntax, not specification. In Haskell, for e
114.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Was 4 really worse than 5? They're just very different. 4 is as much a tactics game as an RPG.
115.
by nyssos 3y ago
> but I'd have to do an integral above my skill level to work out the volume inside; if I understand right, the radial direction and the time direction switch roles at the event horizon. If you try to naively apply the same procedur
116.
by nyssos 3y ago
The biggest near-term threat is probably bioterrorism. You can get arbitrary DNA sequences synthesized and delivered by mail, right now, for about $1 per base pair. You'll be stopped if you try to order some known dangerous viral genom
117.
by nyssos 3y ago
If you want to understand the incompleteness theorems you need an introductory model theory textbook. GEB doesn't really have anything to do with it.
118.
by nyssos 3y ago
> NP-complete just means that it’s very difficult to verify that any solution is the best possible solution. It means that it's hard to find the best solution, but easy to verify.
119.
by nyssos 3y ago
> It should not be too hard to marry the good parts of major language families It is. Language features generally aren't isolated modules that you can add and remove freely: they interact, and "the good parts" are only goo
120.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Write the same program in all three and there won't be a big gap in level of bugginess. I write Typescript at work, and this has not been my experience at all: it's at least an order of magnitude less reliable than even bare

More ›