ukj

8 ms·

31.
by ukj 3y ago
Correspondence is a relation. Relations are functions. Can you tell us more about this function which relates Mathematical concepts to physical reality?
32.
by ukj 3y ago
>Sure, whatever - the point is that they're different objects, and results about one are not results about the other. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "same" and "different". By "same" do
33.
by ukj 3y ago
You say “restricted” I say “better defined”. Either way - A constructive setting is more expressive. So express your English adjectives in Mathematics. What do you mean by “restricted” when you are characterising a function? Show me the dec
34.
by ukj 3y ago
You can’t tell if my inferences are objective or subjective? Why does the distinction even matter then? The more of my comments you declare false - the more evidence you are providing in support of relativism. It is a peculiar way to agree
35.
by ukj 3y ago
A. I am not presenting arguments. Only observations and inferences based on my understanding on the evidence. B. If you declare my “argument” subjective (and therefore false for you, but true for me) you agree with my overall claim Q.E.D C.
36.
by ukj 3y ago
Maybe (spot the computational/monadic joke). In what objective system for evaluating proofs will you be presenting this “refutation”? This whole “we have known” smells of a bandwagon fallacy already. Who do you represent? I find it mil
37.
by ukj 3y ago
OK, so you dislike relativistic arguments. Relative to which objective standard for reasoning are you asserting that any given argument is "sloppy"? It's a turning point in one's life when we come to acknowle that we don
38.
by ukj 3y ago
>That's no longer the halting problem Just your luck. Under Univalence identity is equivalent to equivalence and it's computationally decidable. So you should be able to produce a decider which determines whether any alternativ
39.
by ukj 3y ago
I have no idea what your metric for "strangeness" is. Using similar reasoning we can also assert that "The speed of light is objective" is not an objective claim. And we can further assert that both the inner and outer s
40.
by ukj 3y ago
At that level of pedantry even the halting problem is solvable. Just choose a suitable representation for the Turing machines in question. Describe/represent the ones that halt using 1; and the ones that don’t halt using 0. This produc
41.
by ukj 3y ago
Sounds like you are on the path towards understanding that what we call “objectivity” is an inter-subjective construct.
42.
by ukj 3y ago
Is your schadenfreude meant to make a point, and if so what exactly? Minorities affected by slavery matter, but minorities affected by the holocaust don’t?
43.
by ukj 3y ago
Somebody quite recently said... "You are generalizing too much" The relationship between slave and master is connotationally identical (to me, of course!) to the relationship between leader (Hitler) and follower (Nazis). Historica
44.
by ukj 3y ago
And I don't find it convincing that you don't find it convincing. All terms evoke connotation. That's how and why language works. Which is why I proposed the social experiment for you. Go ahead and replace the word "red&
45.
by ukj 3y ago
You mean other than the decades of connotation lost by switching terminology and the innevitable miscommunication that will ensue? There's nothing wrong with switching the term "red" for the term "carmine", "sc
46.
by ukj 3y ago
Following bad leaders leaves a bitter historical taste in my mouth and is rather insensitive to the feelings of those who fell victim to such attrocities. Hitler was the leader. The Nazis were the followers. It shouldn't be hard to con
47.
by ukj 3y ago
It means exactly that. Software industry estimates are way off the mark compared to plumbing industry estimates. People who don’t like this fact refuse to understand why software isn’t like plumbing.
48.
by ukj 3y ago
So the domain model has already been made explicit and is implemented for you? All the design choices have been removed from you? You don’t have to do any actual software engineering - just extending business logic? That’s nice. Your trivia
49.
by ukj 3y ago
A competent project manager in this undustry also understands that software engineering is not plumbing. And the variance in effort due to lack of standardization, technical intricacy and hidden complexity is orders of magnitude greater tha
50.
by ukj 3y ago
I know what they mean and we aren't disagereing. Given that we are a complex multitude of principle components the single principle component in focus and of interest to a manager is that which the manager has (mis?)identified as the m
51.
by ukj 3y ago
I am always incredibly surprised when people are surprised when I miss deadlines. I said I was going to do it for the following (rather good!) reasons. It is around that time when I am usually informed that I have zero autonomy over such de
52.
by ukj 3y ago
There's no such thing as "principal component" to a human. To quote Walt Whitman - I am large, I contain multitudes. There's only the particular behaviour that's getting in your way within a given context. The bug y
53.
by ukj 3y ago
I can identify with every one of the items on that list. I can also identify that about 60-80% of the time I've been called a "procrastinator"; or a lone wolf; or a negative nancy (or any one of the pejoratives) it's bec
54.
by ukj 3y ago
The idea that we ought to believe what's true is itself a normative picture of how humans should think rather than a descriptive picture of how humans do think. There's no scientific way around underdetermination, but there certai
55.
by ukj 3y ago
You don't falsify a theory - all theories are tautologies. They are true by definition. You falsify the predictions of a theory. When a new theory works better and explains/predicts more the old theory is said to be falsified.
56.
by ukj 3y ago
Indeed, the first theory of gravity was proven wrong. Einstein's theory of general relativity falsified Newton's law of universal gravitation. If you want to take this even further (which is a leap that would certainly upset most
57.
by ukj 4y ago
But do humans "really" understand? When you claim that you "understand" what is it really that you are claiming about yourself? Is the claim testbale/falsifiable? I know humans understands me because they behave in
58.
by ukj 4y ago
>Functional programming concepts don't require learning category theory This is such a reductionist world-view. Programming concepts don't require you to learn the theory of computation either, but having a theoretical/abs
59.
by ukj 4y ago
Nothing. You can re-invent and re-discover everything. By yourself. From first principles. You can re-discover and re-invent all of computation, Mathematics and physics. Heck, you don’t even need computers if you have pen and paper. You can
60.
by ukj 4y ago
>What do those 70 years of mathematics do for me as a software engineer? You mean other than inventing the entire industry in which you work? It's a weird question that I have no idea how to answer for you. What is 70+ years of comp

More ›