stiff

56 ms·

451.
by stiff 14y ago
Then when you talk about the pull-out method of family planning, you say it's a good technique because you'll have kids. That's some impressive double-speak. Next you'll tell me that Caffeine is a good sleep aid because evolution wants you
452.
by stiff 14y ago
It's funny you mention family planning, it's actually a great example for what I am saying. Pull out might not be the best strategy for avoiding kids, but also effectively avoiding kids isn't something too heavily promoted by evolution ;) a
453.
by stiff 14y ago
Yours is a very common response I get to this - I wonder why, since there is absolutely no evidence for it. You vastly underestimate the number of plants in existence and vastly overestimate the fraction we have been able to study rigorousl
454.
by stiff 14y ago
Calling the "naturalistic fallacy" a fallacy is a bit of an overstretch IMO, sure natural=better is not a rule true 100% of the time, but nevertheless until sufficient evidence has not been accumulated that some of the adjustments we make t
455.
by stiff 14y ago
The dragon book will teach you all about how to write your own lexer + parser generator (which I found quite fascinating), but you don't need to know about NFAs/DFA construction etc. One of the most fun projects I made inspired by the Dra
456.
by stiff 14y ago
The single best resource on this topic is the "Dragon Book" Your advice is great in general, but I wish people would back up statements like this with some context, for example, what specifically have you compared it with? Inspired by Ste
457.
by stiff 14y ago
I debugged a few crazy bugs in the past. Example: we have a listing of some items sorted by ascending distance from the user and someone noticed the ordering isn't always right. Luckily at some point I looked at the SQL server production lo
458.
by stiff 14y ago
Bisecting the code is a pain in the ass. Until back-in-time debugging is more of a standard, another alternative is simply to log a lot of stuff and include a bug reporting tool in whatever software you ship that will attach the log to the
459.
by stiff 14y ago
I really hope someone will succeed in rolling out a good and eventually popular replacement for Cron, because Cron completely sucks. The crontab file has a weird syntax, that in some respects seems to look like a shell script, but isn't rea
460.
by stiff 14y ago
1. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being scientifically valid. That's exactly what I am complaining about. 2. Model X for intelligence being highly technical or cool in some mathematical way is not scientific validation. I
461.
by stiff 14y ago
What kind of insight into whether deep networks are interesting or not does the fact that they are (supposedly) not used in the industry bring to the table? To me, insight would be something like "they do not generalize well unless you have
462.
by stiff 14y ago
It is OK to be skeptical, all I am trying to say is that most of the comments leave the impression of the poster trying to lean over backwards to say something at all related to the topic, often ending up with generic truisms. For example h
463.
by stiff 14y ago
I am not playing the credentials game, quite the contrary, I remember trying to understand DBFs while at the university and failing miserably due to the complexity of the subject. I am also not defending deep learning in any way or having
464.
by stiff 14y ago
In comparison to older MLP research, besides the new training algorithm, there is this new insight that the deep structure of the network might be efficient for generating very good encodings of the input variables, like described here: h
465.
by stiff 14y ago
I am sorry, but does anyone else have the impression that a lot of people is commenting here with so much confidence while clearly not knowing anything about the topic? It takes almost an equivalent of an undergraduate mathematics degree an
466.
by stiff 14y ago
There is a second paper where they specifically point out the differences between their approach and previous approaches using neural networks and it isn't only the number of layers that has changed but also the internal architecture of the
467.
by stiff 14y ago
I have no idea if it is the breakthrough of the decade, but I think deep learning isn't just taking a perceptron with many hidden layers and applying backpropagation to it, as you seem to say, all the interesting things about it you summari
468.
by stiff 14y ago
Please don't have the impression that I am being condescending toward universities, I respect and admire a lot of work that is being done there, I just think that not all of innovation can happen there. Google uses a lot of theory, but they
469.
by stiff 14y ago
This includes textbooks ("Handbook of Applied Cryptography", "Reinforcement learning: an introduction") and introductory articles ("A tutorial on hidden Markov models"). Also, ironically, paper 11 in "Academia" is about Google. Anyway, ther
470.
by stiff 14y ago
It remains to be proved that an university is particularly better at innovation that anything else. At least in Computer Science most major historic breakthroughs happened in army departments and in commercial laboratories (Bell Labs, Xerox
471.
by stiff 14y ago
This would be a very peculiar logic I think, maybe you just come from a very different background and hence all the hair-splitting was necessary, we just wandered so far away from the original point I lost patience, maybe unnecessarily, in
472.
by stiff 14y ago
Well, that's exactly what people were considering and what the article is referring too, a variant of classical logic where everything except the law of excluded middle holds true. I don't think this is uninteresting, which postulates are i
473.
by stiff 14y ago
Yes I understand, but why do you think it needs justification? As far as I understand this is simply the definition of implication in classical logic, for one it follows from the truth tables of both expressions.
474.
by stiff 14y ago
I am assuming that we are talking about taking the law of excluded middle out from classical logic, where all the other things independent from that law still hold, and I think implication being material is independent.
475.
by stiff 14y ago
What I meant is that he described the same problem in a more complete way, not that he just said the same thing more nicely. There are infinitely many formal systems and after all we choose only some particular ones, what guides this choice
476.
by stiff 14y ago
Thanks, that was the part I felt uncertain about, funny how this seems completely elementary on one hand and on the other it is so easy to make a mistake.
477.
by stiff 14y ago
Reductio ad absurdum is: (x->(~x))->(~x) Law of excluded middle is: x | ~x Proof follows: (x->(~x))->(~x) From definition of implication is equivalent to: (~x) | ~(x->(~x)) From definition of implication is equivalent to
478.
by stiff 14y ago
I just wanted to explain the authors mental leap, I originally said: if you do not accept the law of excluded middle than proof by contradiction ceases to be a valid proof method . The law of excluded middle might not be sufficient, but is
479.
by stiff 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum#The_princi...
480.
by stiff 14y ago
In a logical system you have axioms, that are sentences that are true by definition and proof methods which are rules of sentence transformation that are assumed to preserve truthiness. The law of noncontradiction is an axiom that states: X

More ›