tprice7

14 ms·

91.
by tprice7 9y ago
THat's not one of the recommendations he gives. That's not even part of the email itself.
92.
by tprice7 9y ago
Which one of the recommendations given here do you think would entail workaholism?
93.
by tprice7 9y ago
A completely different basis free definition, that works whenever you are working over the complex numbers or any other algebraically-closed field: The determinant is uniquely determined by the following two axioms: 1. The determinant of th
94.
by tprice7 9y ago
"Usually" So there is an instance where this isn't the case?
95.
by tprice7 9y ago
But don't these models all have a true zero, distinct from the infinitesimals, which is its own negative?
96.
by tprice7 9y ago
Do you have a reference for this? I would believe you if you said "an infinitesimally small value" rather than 0. If it's true then I'm very surprised. For one, 0 = -0, so if sin(0)/0 = 1, then -1 = -sin(0)/0 =
97.
by tprice7 9y ago
The two situations are not analogous, there is a crucial difference. Like tekromancr was getting at, you get a logical contradiction if you assume the existence of 1/0, if you also assume the ring axioms. To elaborate, if 0x = 1, then
98.
by tprice7 9y ago
"Renate Scheidler, a math professor at the University of Calgary, said there’d be no six-string guitars, so music would sound different" Good thing they asked exclusively math professors for a response, so you know you are getting
99.
by tprice7 9y ago
"Even if you're using very little of what you think of as "math" to interact with your machine learning framework, to dismiss math as not being necessary is ignoring all of the underlying mathematics that went into creat
100.
by tprice7 9y ago
Ok, so you are saying that, since people in general like to do fun things, it takes a lot of self discipline to make yourself learn programming, history, etc, which in general requires doing things that aren't fun. I think you are over
101.
by tprice7 9y ago
In relation to Bill Sethare's work, I recommend listening to example (1) here : http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/html/soundexamples.html , which is an amazing demonstration of the relationship between overtone beatin
102.
by tprice7 10y ago
Hmm interesting. So it seems the Boltzmann machine explanation of dreams that I described becomes less convincing when you consider that running the waking and dreaming phases of the training algorithm in separate long "chunks", i
103.
by tprice7 10y ago
"I wouldn't be so sure that Boltzmann machines were designed without how the brain operated in mind." Sure, actually it seems highly unlikely to me that they were designed without considering at all how they brain works. Let
104.
by tprice7 10y ago
As someone with no neuroscience background I’ve suspected this for a while just based on how Boltzmann machines work. These are a type of unsupervised artificial neural network. The training algorithm for Boltzmann machines has two phases:
105.
by tprice7 10y ago
You made an error: p1p2...pn + 1 is not necessarily prime, but none of its prime factors are in {p1, ..., pn}. For example, 15 = 2 * 7 + 1 is not prime, but neither 3 nor 5 are in {2, 7}. I agree with your overall point though.
106.
by tprice7 10y ago
I don't get anything when I ctrl-F for "moment" or "density" there (other than in sidebar links).
107.
by tprice7 10y ago
I am curious which particular proofs you are referring to, could you please give a link or reference or something?
108.
by tprice7 10y ago
"there isn't a truly compelling reason to believe that RH is true, aside from numerical evidence and a belief in beauty." You wouldn't consider the analogue of the Riemann hypothesis for the zeta function of a smooth pro
109.
by tprice7 10y ago
Is there some objective sense in which conservation of momentum is more fundamental than conservation of energy in a different reference frame? Since either can be derived from the other, how do you determine which is "actually a conse
110.
by tprice7 10y ago
Did you see my response to the parent, where I give a sketch of how conservation of momentum follows directly from conservation of energy in all frames of reference? What is your objection to that argument?
111.
by tprice7 10y ago
I had never realized that conservation of momentum is just a special case of conservation of energy, thank you for sharing this interesting observation! (I see now that, since the change in energy when changing the frame of reference is det
112.
by tprice7 10y ago
'The question for me is, does it deliver more, less or the same amount of knowledge than during Higgs's time?' I don't think that is the right question. Say it produces more knowledge, but the fields that are studied are
113.
by tprice7 10y ago
If you don't consider the topics mungoid mentioned to be advanced math, perhaps you'll still consider this to be: http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.05797 It was accepted to Algebraic Geometry in May, (the Foundation
114.
by tprice7 10y ago
Yes, I've encountered one form of the Curry-Howard correspondence before. Are you claiming that, via the Curry-Howard correspondence or some related phenomenon, the corresponding proof of a program used to compress a proof is the same
115.
by tprice7 10y ago
Maybe we could define the Kolmogorov complexity of a proof as the number of lines of code, PLUS the size of the proof that the proof-generating program halts. Or the total number of lines of code in a sequence of programs, where the first p
116.
by tprice7 10y ago
"As the new shorter proof is the compressed representation + the decompression program." A proof is a sequence of deductions, not a program that generates a sequence of deductions.
117.
by tprice7 10y ago
That's an interesting idea and piece, thanks for sharing.
118.
by tprice7 11y ago
Based on rewqfdsa's comment history, this is probably sarcasm.
119.
by tprice7 11y ago
I think MattHeard understood this and his point was that the weakest man will realistically have quality C + epsilon + random, and the weakest woman will have quality C + K + epsilon + random. The random term arises because no evaluation pr
120.
by tprice7 11y ago
Another inaccuracy: the sound example "sine, saw, triangle, square" only correctly gives an example of a sine wave. The other three sounds are neither saws, triangles, or squares, but these weird irregular waveforms, which sound c

More ›