pkoird

12 ms·

91.
by pkoird 2y ago
Kolmogorov Arnold nets might have an answer for you!
92.
by pkoird 2y ago
I am not sure I understand. Sin(x) approaches x only when x approaches 0. When else does the universe does a bad job with this approximation?
93.
by pkoird 2y ago
Unpopular opinion but I really liked Microsoft Academic instead until they canned it, sadly.
94.
by pkoird 2y ago
Here's an idea, use a (portable) ultrasound emitter device that sends a pulse every set second and use an earpiece receiver that produces equivalent acoustics in audible range. The setup may reduce "tongue-fatigue' and the ul
95.
by pkoird 2y ago
Curious to how long the frozen structure can "survive". I wonder if it's a good idea to freeze one such frog and thaw it centuries later (an amphibian time-traveler!)
96.
by pkoird 2y ago
Not necessarily. Only when people are afraid or anxious.
97.
by pkoird 2y ago
I just installed the reader extension for this feature and can't wait to see if it's useful (I dearly hope so, though). IMO, a fundamental area I'd like LLMs to be used in is the consolidation of all scientific knowledge. As
98.
by pkoird 2y ago
Science is only as good as it's honest. I get a result that's not as flashy but did I report everything correctly? Yes? Then it's good science. I get a result that's groundbreaking but I left out certain (potentially pro
99.
by pkoird 2y ago
Used to be that "Captain goes down with the ship" but it's unfortunate to see the trend shift. The fundamental problem I see is that CEOs are not loyal to their "ship" and the crew. After all, why bother when you ca
100.
by pkoird 2y ago
But can you not? Assume sum, 1..(N+1)/2..N Have you not actually built the same proof via induction in both cases with one of them starting from the middle and subsequently including left and right terms at a unit away (you actually do
101.
by pkoird 2y ago
That is a really good question. I suppose you could reduce it further by saying that you want the proof of "A or B". Assuming both true, it suffices to either get a proof for A or for B (of course, this may not be true in general)
102.
by pkoird 2y ago
I'm responding to your second example simply because it's easy to argue about. I'd say that both proofs that you have presented are equivalent ways of saying that "since when you sum all the numbers from 1 to N you obtai
103.
by pkoird 2y ago
I can attempt to semi-formalize it but I'm sure I'd butcher it along the way so feel free to point out anything that doesn't feel correct. Consider a set of premises P that are assumed to be true. Also, consider that we are t
104.
by pkoird 2y ago
Not quite. If we consider that we are trying to prove "you can reach the local food store from your house" then starting from either side would consist of two proofs by example. And for sure these are different paths one is taking
105.
by pkoird 2y ago
I don't think you have disagreed with me. You have advocated that different tools/methods are useful for different problems and may have unique properties that make them interesting in specific contexts. I completely agree and I h
106.
by pkoird 2y ago
If I were allowed a small philosophical leeway, I'd argue that two correct proofs are always the same. For sure they may contain different words or make use of different "abstractions", but it just seems to me that these ab
107.
Aumann's Agreement Theorem(rationalwiki.org)
1 points by pkoird 2y ago|0 comments
108.
by pkoird 2y ago
I never really understood the 3 body problem. Am I correct in saying that given three bodies that attract one another, there is currently no known way of predicting, at arbitrary time, where they'll end up at, even though it is possibl
109.
by pkoird 2y ago
Or negatives
110.
by pkoird 2y ago
I've said this before and I'll say it again: Any sufficiently advanced LLM is indistinguishable from Prolog.
111.
by pkoird 2y ago
The conjecture itself might not be as important but the tools we have to discover and use to prove this conjecture would be of paramount importance, as they'd teach us about the nature of mathematics, numbers, and more.
112.
by pkoird 2y ago
It's a shame that Einstein thought writing a book for popular consumption to be an endeavor tied solely to material ambitions. I, for one, would have loved to read "A brief history of time" esque compilation written by Einste
113.
by pkoird 2y ago
It looks like the phrasing threw me off. I now see that the author meant "Not saying no to leadership ..."
114.
by pkoird 2y ago
> Don’t say no to leadership when the timeline is not realistic. And do what instead? Work overtime and through the weekends to deliver? Or lie to them at the beginning and fail to deliver in time? Setting real expectations should help t
115.
by pkoird 2y ago
A good code, in my opinion, is written by appropriate selection of suitably contained abstractions. The problem with this, and the article does try to talk about it, is that for you to select appropriate abstractions, you need to know the &
116.
by pkoird 2y ago
I remember using this to submit FSM related assignments for my Theory of Computation classes back in the day. Fun times.
117.
by pkoird 2y ago
You mention that there is no penalty for not writing a "proper" code, nor is there any incentive for writing one. But I'd like to argue that doing something right purely for the sake of doing it right should be the entire rea
118.
by pkoird 2y ago
> You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. I can imagine a frustrated researcher reading this and muttering, "and what? Risk publication?". Scientific integrity, of which
119.
by pkoird 2y ago
I suppose a similar argument could be made about Bell Labs, where much of the digital foundations were invented.
120.
by pkoird 2y ago
Perhaps, but like I said, there are books and then there are good books. Besides, state of the art might change rapidly but the fundamentals rarely do.

More ›