sharpener

9 ms·

1.
by sharpener 3y ago
Or only for the things that experience gravity as a curved surface? Gravity, arguably, does not experience gravity as a curved surface.
2.
by sharpener 3y ago
My guess... In the mathematics of the physics, gravity is a scalar field. We don't really know what gravity is, we just have various descriptions that seem to be useful at various levels of detail. So when folks talk about gravity wave
3.
by sharpener 3y ago
Some thoughts... On the connected question of why human societies accelerated their development over time (recently posted on HN) a couple of comments are pertinent (see [0] and [1]). If one values the continued acceleration of human develo
4.
by sharpener 4y ago
Efficient proprioception is useless if key behavioural incentives are misaligned with key aspects of the environment. Humans are quite good at creating collective organisations that are delusional, even though some of those organisations ha
5.
by sharpener 4y ago
Imho, RRO only works well if some additional rules are added, to hold from the outset and throughout the process. As a prototype offering: 1. There must be sufficient representative diversity on the committee. 2. No agent on the committee s
6.
by sharpener 4y ago
I agree with the comments that the article is misdirecting fluff. Cutting through... All organised systems (anything that we would describe as a system as opposed to random or chaos) require additional energy inputs to maintain organisation
7.
by sharpener 4y ago
An untested idea/suggestion... In the first Open Problem, maybe the generator tweak for random Hamiltonian paths is that two grids are needed: one for the eventual H-path; and one of points that are the centroids of the first which is
8.
by sharpener 4y ago
Maybe someone familiar with the graph theory math can help me. I don't understand why these properties aren't numerically accessible. Why is the estimation necessary? E.g. Assume N nodes, and edges E can be created at random with
9.
by sharpener 5y ago
Why CO2 from air vs. extraction from seawater? I remember seeing some papers (e.g. [0]) suggesting the from seawater route was way more efficient per m^3 processed with a lot less environmental disturbance. [0] https://doi.org&#x
10.
by sharpener 5y ago
I am not a lawyer, but... a public interest clause might not be the right tool, since public interest can be interpreted as restricted to information that would affect a person's voting preferences and nothing broader. In the UK TV bro
11.
by sharpener 5y ago
After constructing a better diagram that lens idea looks false too. Similar triangles win again.
12.
by sharpener 5y ago
A fair approach. Incidentally, I just drew some diagrams and with the assumptions that the Earth is not at the centre of expansion, Earth orbit has extremes (for parallax), and all light only takes straight routes, my second question has a
13.
by sharpener 5y ago
I'm not a cosmologist but... Is it possible to have both photon tiring and expansion and still measure the same numbers in experiment? Also wouldn't the arc separation of deep field stars increase detectably with expansion?
14.
by sharpener 5y ago
For the sake of HN archival history... The executive summary of my paper is that provably there are fatal inconsistencies in Cantor's Diagonal Argument (CDA). They take a few forms: (1) Application of basic classical analysis tools rev
15.
by sharpener 5y ago
Lawvere's paper appears to suggest that if I refute one diagonal argument then I refute them all. Would you consider that to be an accurate description?
16.
by sharpener 5y ago
I'm not seeing this yet. Perhaps you could explain it to me in plain terms.
17.
by sharpener 5y ago
> Theorem: There is no bijection between ℕ and {0, 1}*. So no bijection between \bb{N} in an unspecified number base and some binary strings that could represent integers? That's a nonstarter for me. Please read my article. Thanks.
18.
by sharpener 5y ago
> Define a function z(n) = 1 - f(n)(n). I don't understand the notation f(n)(n). Is it related to f_{nn} in LaTeX notation? Your later text suggests maybe it was aiming at f(n,n) so I will assume that. I recognise a form of this arg
19.
by sharpener 5y ago
The mileage of others may vary, but it has been my experience that there is no cogent solid proof of uncountability that can withstand concerted critique.[0] Being charitable one might argue that the meanings of terminology had been lost in