snarkconjecture

8 ms·

61.
by snarkconjecture 3y ago
The AdS/CFT correspondence was published slightly after that collection. Are you saying Baxter scooped Maldacena?
62.
by snarkconjecture 3y ago
There is of course a catch, since physics can be simulated (with an exponential slowdown) by a Turing machine. The catch is that "macroscopic behavior" in this context includes things that are not really macroscopically observable
63.
by snarkconjecture 3y ago
I stand corrected.
64.
by snarkconjecture 3y ago
No, multiplying the incidence by 1.05 is incorrect. The 5% figure is additive. ICRP Publication 103 is pretty unambiguous; e.g. Table A.4.2 gives total figures of about 400-600 "cases per 10,000 persons per Sv".
65.
by snarkconjecture 3y ago
It would be astonishing if it were a mistake. And yes, it's a detectable signal. "in a large population-based cohort it was found that up to 4% of brain cancers were caused by CT scan radiation" --somewhere on Wikipedia CT sc
66.
by snarkconjecture 3y ago
You did it wrong. One Sv increases your absolute risk of fatal cancer by an added 5% or so. It doesn't multiply it by 1.05. Quoting Wikipedia: "According to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), one sieve
67.
by snarkconjecture 3y ago
All of the graphs in the literature suggest a positive second derivative. Why do you say negative? AIUI the model is that hormesis kicks in even for extremely small amounts of radiation, but has a limited effect and is overwhelmed by the ne
68.
by snarkconjecture 3y ago
I was trying to give a conceptual understanding on the level of the person I was responding to, not instructions for doing actual calculations. I didn't mean to suggest euclidean metric, I just thought "3+1" would be extra ja
69.
by snarkconjecture 3y ago
There are many ways for spacetime to warp, which can be put into two categories. The simpler kind, Ricci curvature, is the only kind of curvature in <4 dimensions and is produced by mass-energy, momentum, pressure, and shear stress, acco
70.
by snarkconjecture 3y ago
Yes, it's a little buried but the article says > The energy turnover results from the coupled heating power multiplied by the duration of the discharge The numbers: > The energy turnover of 1.3 gigajoule was achieved with an aver
71.
Bees: A new unit of measurement for ML model size(lesswrong.com)
1 points by snarkconjecture 4y ago|0 comments
72.
by snarkconjecture 4y ago
You can't specify the time derivative of the wavefunction independently , because the Schrodinger equation is first-order (unlike classical dynamical laws which are second-order).
73.
by snarkconjecture 4y ago
I think that's not quite it. The relevant theorem is that variance(position-space function f) * variance(Fourier transform of f) >= some constant. A wavefunction is a wavefunction, it doesn't have more frequency components at t
74.
by snarkconjecture 4y ago
They got the article from the OP article -- it goes on a diversion into the circle-squaring thing at the end.
75.
by snarkconjecture 4y ago
1/7 ≈ 1/8.2 + 1/47 gives about half the error (<.3%) with half the resistor count.
76.
by snarkconjecture 4y ago
Or the greedy approach: 6.8+.22 in parallel with 2700 gives you 7.0018 with .026% error.
77.
by snarkconjecture 4y ago
> one cannot feasibly produce resistors with values as elements of a dense subset of the real line, being, as analysis taught us, an uncountable set The rational numbers are an example of a countable dense set. Unfortunately, countably-i
78.
by snarkconjecture 4y ago
Unless one of the leaks caused all the others, it seems like a hell of a coincidence for them to all happen on the same day by chance after sitting there for years.
79.
by snarkconjecture 4y ago
Disclaimer: not a linguist. Languages don't really become systematically simpler over time, or they would've had to start out incredibly complicated. They have some tendency to cycle between lots of grammatical forms (like Latin)
80.
by snarkconjecture 4y ago
What does this achieve that posting "text me and I'll tell you if I have a crush on you" doesn't? Or texting your crush directly? I suppose it's a useful commitment mechanism for proving you aren't telling ever