saithound

3 ms·

1.
by saithound 7d ago
You opened with the claim that nonstandard analysis hasn't caught on because it's "mostly the exact same arguments wrapped in slightly different language". I pointed out that the arguments are in fact very distinct: e.g.
2.
by saithound 8d ago
Not so relevant to this discussion, since if you are funded by patronage networks, you need to justify your work to your patron. If you are funded by grants or public research funds, you need to justify your work to the general public.
3.
by saithound 8d ago
You made a sweeping claim that nonstandard analysis arguments are the exact same arguments, wrapped in nonstandard langauge. I explained that (while your other claims about simplicity may be valid) this is not so and detracts from the rest
4.
by saithound 9d ago
> imagine yourself living in the 1700s. how would you justify Newton and Leibniz's work on calculus? They didn't have to, as there were no state grants or public research funds for mathematics during the 17th century. Newton su
5.
by saithound 9d ago
> This is the standard nested interval proof It is not. I'll be honest: your one sentence response tells me you did not read the proof above in any detail. I chose Nelson's proof precisely because its construction is well-studi
6.
by saithound 11d ago
> The so-called "nonstandard analysis" hasn't caught on, because it's mostly the exact same arguments wrapped in slightly different language No. Let's take a nonstandard proof of the intermediate value theorem o
7.
by saithound 22d ago
Now that is a good and interesting question! Hopefully a "no-moatist" will share their reasoning.
8.
by saithound 23d ago
That's the ratio the widely published numbers give [1]. One does not have to believe the numbers [2], but those who do believe them are then justified to conclude that there's no moat. Which numbers you believe is of course going
9.
by saithound 23d ago
No. In the semiconductor industry, the "catch-up" player isn't normally spending less in absolute R&D terms. Comparing the R&D costs of creating GPT-4o vs. DeepSeek V3 (the latest gen for which we already have good ac
10.
by saithound 27d ago
Not for long. Too late to get Business now to exploit this, since EH and the small credit-free Pro allowance will soon be restricted to Premium Seats ($100/m).
11.
by saithound 27d ago
If we voice this opinion publicly, the most likely end result is that OpenAI will start billing our chat sessioms against our Codex budget too.
12.
by saithound 29d ago
> Maybe it's because I'm American, but I can't imagine actually saying that to someone. I'd sorta expect them to throw hands if I talked like that about Jesus. I mean, that's exactly what a "slur" is.
13.
by saithound 29d ago
> You can tell that Claude really does grasp a wide array of highly specific scientific and mathematical nuances... where's codex is just basically for coding and that's it. If you have time, can you elaborate or give some exam
14.
by saithound 1mo ago
> If it is known that A is provably true then one can study the consequences of A being true But one can already study the consequences of P=NP right now. You don't need to know that it's provably true in order to do that. Know
15.
by saithound 1mo ago
dgacmu: if you're writing C on x64, try AES-128-CTR (AES-NI, 8 way) using the header wmmintrin.h which has hardware accelerated primitives for this. An LLM can implement the RNG for you based on this comment if you want to test it out
16.
by saithound 1mo ago
When was the last time a new PRNG helped you clearly identify a performance bottleneck? As in, you were using state of the art generator X, and you couldn't see the performance bottleneck, but updating to a newer (faster, or same speed
17.
by saithound 1mo ago
> I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, Have you skimmed the linked thread? > especially simulation/sampling approaches that are bound by the number and quality of uniform variates per second Sorry, nobody does stochasti
18.
by saithound 1mo ago
Ah yes, Xorshift, the RANDU [1] of the 21st century [2]. There is no real use case for better non-CS generators, as explained by adrian_b back in 2021 [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RANDU [2] https:/&#x2F
19.
by saithound 1mo ago
> The article was showing the difference between mathematicians and engineers. No. Many engineers AND mathematicians worked for a long time to get us to a stage where Amazon can solve a billion SMT problems a day. To contribute, all of t
20.
by saithound 1mo ago
Having read the article, I can confirm that it is.
21.
by saithound 2mo ago
While their math results are impressive, vibe coding their own web UIs with their subpar design models is really going to backfire if their plan is to attract new users with better free model offerings. The Aug 6 update has forced the entr
22.
by saithound 2mo ago
I don't think that's it. Multiple or my friends from the target audience (academic mathematicians) admitted to scrolling past because the title made it sound like a review of last month's contributions, instead of 10 new ones
23.
by saithound 2mo ago
It looks like Zach Weinersmith predicted this exact line of research 11 years ago [1], when he suggested testing the liar sentence using fMRI. The same analysis applies: the probe tells us what the LLM thinks about the truth value if the se
24.
by saithound 2mo ago
You're confused because the word kernel is used in two different senses. The "generated kernel" refers to a "geometric modeling kernel", which has absolutely nothing to do with the proof-checking kernel that the de
25.
by saithound 2mo ago
> . You can't formally verify your application works correctly under transient network error conditions if you never thought about what your application should do under those conditions. [..] it's expensive to spend that much t
26.
by saithound 2mo ago
> Really unnecessary levels of snark here. [..] Have you ever heard of prolog? Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own? > I’m sure a prolog program can express w
27.
by saithound 2mo ago
> The two big discoveries both came from the negligible handful of mathematicians working at OpenAI/Anthropic in spite of many orders of magnitude more mathematicians using them outside of the companies Well, mathematicians not work
28.
by saithound 2mo ago
> This does not sit well with personal experience and I wonder if it is just one of these questions of AI people being unaware of the level of skill that exists in domains they think have been automated. I suspect the difficulty here lie
29.
by saithound 2mo ago
Going from "current mainstream culture is not perfect" to "there should be more experiments in alternative ways of life" requires the assumption namely, that the average experiment is more likely to improve matters than
30.
by saithound 3mo ago
> What happens to the whole AI value proposition when instead of it being a way to pump out lines of code for crazy cheap it becomes a way for each line of code to become vastly more expensive than it was before? I would consider that a

More ›