tprice7

17 ms·

121.
by tprice7 11y ago
Interesting ideas, thanks for the response.
122.
by tprice7 11y ago
That makes sense. I'm curious what you think about variants on the PageRank idea that address the slowness problem you point out. You state in an earlier comment “so if there was a committee that provided that evaluation entirely outsi
123.
by tprice7 12y ago
I disagree with clumping atonal together with microtonal, they are two completely different things. Regarding Wyschnegradsky, maybe his music is a gentle introduction into atonal music, I don't know. Compared to other microtonal music
124.
by tprice7 12y ago
Correction: the _integral domains_ for which every nonzero element is a power of a fixed nonzero nonunit element up to associates are exactly discrete valuation rings. So my final statement should read: "...which again doesn't mak
125.
by tprice7 12y ago
Ok, but rings for which every nonzero element is a power of a fixed nonzero nonunit element up to associates are exactly discrete valuation rings. So your statement boils down to "The only UFDs that are discrete valuation rings are (ra
126.
by tprice7 12y ago
It's seems a bit absurd to me to go further than non-fields, because fields have no non-zero non-units by definition. That is a nicer argument than the one I had come up with though, which used the observation that all such rings must
127.
by tprice7 12y ago
" the only non-field class of examples of UFDs having every nonzero element as a power of a fixed nonzero nonunit element is a (rank 1) discrete valuation ring." Ok, but the UFD criterion is redundant here because there are no non
128.
by tprice7 12y ago
Well I'm glad we are in agreement then. No worries about the UFD thing.
129.
by tprice7 12y ago
"Being a UFD in general is not enough, but being a UFD in which 2, 3, and 5 are (co)prime is certainly sufficient for incommensurability of 3/2, 2, and 5/4 in the relevant sense." Ok, this seems like kind of a contrived
130.
by tprice7 12y ago
I agree that the connection with UFDs is tenuous. Being not a UFD is nether a necessary or a sufficient condition to have powers of a single thing (or a finite number of things) generate all nonzero elements. The ring of integers modulo 7 f
131.
by tprice7 12y ago
It makes sense that major 3rds didn't bother him. With major tenths the fifth harmonic of the lower note is beating against the second harmonic of the upper note. With major thirds it is beating against the fourth harmonic of the upper
132.
Nerve impulses can collide and continue unaffected(nbi.ku.dk)
5 points by tprice7 12y ago|0 comments
133.
by tprice7 12y ago
It looks like there was a misunderstanding here. It's ambiguous from your original post whether you oppose unschooling in general or the specific approach of the author of this article. It's clear now that you meant the latter and
134.
by tprice7 12y ago
It's not necessary to be enrolled in a university in order to do that. It does help to be in a university town though.
135.
by tprice7 13y ago
Nevermind, I got it: http://www.google.ca/trends/explore#q=lifeformed%2C%20dustfo...
136.
by tprice7 13y ago
Cool album. How did you get a big enough audience to make real money from this? Was it just word of mouth from making good tracks? Or was it also from doing shows or reaching out to music blogs or something?
137.
by tprice7 13y ago
I like this one: http://maximecb.github.io/Turing-Drawings/#4,3,2,2,1,3,1,0,2...
138.
by tprice7 13y ago
I made a site a while ago that acts this way. Basically when a person vouches for another person or post it creates a metaphorical one-way electrical resistor from the person to the other person or post. Then it ranks posts by connecting yo
139.
by tprice7 13y ago
"couldnt you say that the meaning of the life of certain ants is to serve their queen" You could say that, but the word "meaning" in this context is not used in a literal sense, it's expressing something closer to &
140.
The web.py Philosophy(webpy.org)
112 points by tprice7 14y ago|8 comments
141.
by tprice7 14y ago
Thank you for the explanation. For a given set of axioms you have the same "blind spots" whether you are verifying proofs manually or with computer assistance.
142.
by tprice7 14y ago
Ok, what about it?
143.
by tprice7 14y ago
What do you mean by not fully automatic? What is the manual part? I think right now the job of describing a (sophisticated) proof to a computer is analogous to the job of writing a sophisticated computer program like a game or Facebook in a
144.
by tprice7 14y ago
Well, yes, we would have to convince ourselves of the validity of the code that checks the proofs. But the thing is once we made one proof checker whose code we were really confident about, the checking would be over because we could use it
145.
by tprice7 14y ago
Please elaborate. I find it difficult to believe that the problem you are hinting at would be a showstopper because there already exist computer systems for verifying mathematical proofs to standards of rigor acceptable by mainstream mathem
146.
by tprice7 14y ago
The validity of a mathematical proof depends on a few very precise rules that can be checked by a computer, so I think it's interesting that we still rely so much on humans for the verification of mathematical proofs. As the article points
147.
by tprice7 14y ago
Write a three-voice fugue in ten tone equal temperament.
148.
by tprice7 14y ago
Perhaps you could have a system where users vouch for other users who make good submissions, and then have submissions ranked with something along the lines of PageRank, with "vouching for" taking the place of "linking to". The advantage of
149.
by tprice7 14y ago
If you restrict the vertices you are looking at to the ones within some fixed distance from a central vertex, there are only finitely many cases. This could make brute-forcing possible. (I do agree, though, that this is non-trivial and it l
150.
by tprice7 14y ago
For those curious, here are a few of the author's musical compositions: http://pedrokroger.net/compositions/

More ›