orangutango

5 ms·

1.
by orangutango 9y ago
For any set of axioms you take, if they are consistent then it is incomplete. You can enhance the axiom set to extend its reach, but an adversary can always find true, unprovable statements. My main point is I disagree with the view of math
2.
by orangutango 9y ago
"[A]ll pure mathematics deals exclusively with concepts definable in terms of a very small number of fundamental logical concepts, and that all its propositions are deducible from a very small number of fundamental logical principles .
3.
by orangutango 10y ago
I like this visual explanation of the illusion/fallacy: http://www.abarry.org/knee.htm
4.
by orangutango 10y ago
+1 for Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms. A fantastic book by the late David C Mackay. Part V has an interesting presentation of neural networks, but really this book is about information theory and Bayesian probability
5.
by orangutango 10y ago
Whose standard argument? I always thought: we work 40 hours a week because we work 8 hours a day; and we work 8 hours a day because Robert Owen's mantra "Eight hours' labour, Eight hours' recreation, Eight hours' re
6.
by orangutango 10y ago
Completely agree, and this hits close to home. I was a very math oriented student at a high school with a heavy bias towards liberal arts ... So when it came to picking senior year electives, I was delighted to enroll in AP statistics. The
7.
by orangutango 10y ago
Locally != independently; the training process is recursive, so interactions between layers are present. From the paper: "The parameters of the entire SARM are solved recursively. The current ARM’s parameters are calculated using the o