steppi

16 ms·

121.
by steppi 5y ago
I'd accept that. OP's submission has a good example where Graeber's difficulty taking criticism almost cost him and Wengrow a publication which was saved by Wengrow's more measured approach. He and Wengrow were serious
122.
by steppi 5y ago
David Graeber had an account here and defended himself from DeLong's accusations in a comment [1]. They even had an exchange in that thread. At best I think DeLong has been pretty uncharitable to Graeber. [1] https://news.yc
123.
by steppi 5y ago
Foucault has acquired a bad reputation in some circles as a nonsense-peddler but in my opinion it's not really deserved. Anyone interested in getting a sense of his thought should check out the transcripts of the lectures he gave at th
124.
by steppi 5y ago
Yes, definitely. The conclusion of the article is > OK, so how does this happen? Why were a group of physicists who are obviously skilled and mathematically competent unable to detect that they’d rediscovered known methods? How is it th
125.
On a surprising relationship between statistical physics and machine learning(steppi.github.io)
4 points by steppi 5y ago|2 comments
126.
by steppi 5y ago
For those interested, there's a nice exposition that treats real numbers as infinite decimals in Hubbard and Hubbard's Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms: A Unified Approach [1] [1] http://matrixe
127.
by steppi 5y ago
This is a simple proof of some relatively deep results in number theory. It should be accessible to anyone with at least a couple semesters of university level math.
128.
Erdős’s proof of Bertrand’s postulate (2015) [pdf](www3.nd.edu)
1 points by steppi 5y ago|1 comments
129.
Historical Ramblings in Algebraic Geometry and Related Algebra (1976)[pdf](maa.org)
1 points by steppi 5y ago|0 comments