ukj

10 ms·

61.
by ukj 4y ago
Category theory is to functional/declarative programming what design patterns are to OO programming. Patterns for decomposing problems and composing solutions. To ask “How is it useful?” Is to ask “How are design patterns useful in OO?
62.
by ukj 4y ago
None of what I am about to say is meant to discourage you; or dismiss you - keep fighting the good fight. It sure sounds like you've been through hell. You should read my comments through an objective lens. I try to be as neutral/
63.
by ukj 4y ago
It is an unrealistic and unwise expectation to live one’s life that way. Decision fatigue will catch up with anyone who lives like that soon enough. Time is a finite resource. Don’t waste it on perfectionism.
64.
by ukj 4y ago
All of your unquestioned cultural norms and biases. Everything your parents, your family; your community and your society taught you. The heuristics that keep you navigating life without having to scrutinize every single choice from first p
65.
by ukj 4y ago
Right, in topology a “point” can represent any mathematical object e.g 1 of “e^(kx)”
66.
by ukj 4y ago
So… fixed points? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_point_(mathematics)
67.
by ukj 4y ago
Nobody is saying it isn’t useful. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t. I am saying that in the realm of theoretical science “why?” produces only meta-theoretical (philosophical/religious) answers that may or may not be relevant to the
68.
by ukj 4y ago
When you ask “why?” questions you always get religious/philosophical answers. I cannot tell you why stuff amuses me, all I can tell you is that it amuses me. For all we know the awe and profundity comes from the sense of discovery. Bu
69.
by ukj 4y ago
Sounds like you’ve found (psychological?) utility in aesthetics and beauty…
70.
by ukj 4y ago
It's useful in so far as it makes people question themselves. It's useless in so far as it doesn't teach any of the nitty grittys of epistemic rigour e.g all the tricks scientists learn to avoit the various traps of their own
71.
by ukj 4y ago
Those “not bad” answers are frankly terrible. Why am I doing what I am doing? Why am I asking this question? Why did you start this thread? Both answers immediately shut down the enquiry. But if I wanted to shut down the enquiry then why di
72.
by ukj 4y ago
>if you want to classify mathematics as a science on the basis of ... The argument here for math to be a science is very tortured and contrived, I am not classifying Mathematics as a science on the basis that you claim. I am not even mak
73.
by ukj 4y ago
I am not sure why you are using the phrase "natural science", is there any other kind? Lets revisit with the wikipedia definition: Science (from Latin scientia 'knowledge') is a systematic enterprise that builds and
74.
by ukj 4y ago
I wonder if there is an echo in an empty set.
75.
by ukj 4y ago
It sure seems like the goal posts are being moved. Every experiment is an experiment of nature. Humans are part of nature. Human constructs are part of nature. Every interaction that results in the testing or falsification of some hypothesi
76.
by ukj 4y ago
Well, they may not be binary categories but it's stange that you don't think your particular example belongs to one of the two categories. You don't think it's evil for people to have to steal food just to avoid starvat
77.
by ukj 4y ago
I wanted to categorize everything as "categorized" or "uncategorized". Nothing remains in the latter category for more than an instant.
78.
by ukj 4y ago
I mean, it's an accurate characterisation of humans affairs, but I haven't heard any better ideas yet when it comes to figuring what goes into the categories of "good" and "evil".
79.
by ukj 4y ago
>Yes you are right, I do not see how can you understand Physics/Nature without exploiting anything I am happy to equate exploitation with understanding, but then I don’t see how you could possibly understand Mathematics without expl
80.
by ukj 4y ago
Mathematics is a language, but then why are you saying there was no Mathematics before Pythagoras? Obviously Pythagoras didn’t invent language! Long before Pythagoras people had been using language for doing and expressing computation. Pāṇi
81.
by ukj 4y ago
Then step aside and take a vow of silence. Let me speak with your AI. Let it refute me by telling me about it’s needs. Queue excuses…
82.
by ukj 4y ago
I disagree with your disagreement. Why do humans need/invent computation, hosting, cryptocurrencies and AI? I can’t fathom any data center remaining online for more than a few weeks/months if all humans keeping it running magicall
83.
by ukj 4y ago
In the pyramid of human knowledge physics (a science, according to you) rests on top of mathematics (not a science, according to you). We had mathematics long before we had physics. So it is pretty obvious that physic is founded upon a libe
84.
by ukj 4y ago
A logic puzzle by a computer scientist? Imagine that! If you don’t understand the reference to the Liar’s paradox you have self-selected yourself as somebody who doesn’t understand computer science. Similarly: if you prefer prose (which is
85.
by ukj 4y ago
What is confusing you about my comment? People who understand computer science also understand exactly what I am talking about. Because I explicitly said what I am talking about: undecidability. It is scientifically undecidable what a man;
86.
by ukj 4y ago
Not just software. All knowledge (computer science, mathematics, physics, biology, etc.) is used by humans. To what end? That is not a scientific question. To steal the sentiment from a meme. Scientist: what is philosophy good for? Philosop
87.
by ukj 4y ago
In the “woke” world of computation this sentence is false. And the previous sentence is true. The liar’s paradox, decidability and undecidability (being core ideas in computer science) directly imply that it is scientifically undecidable w
88.
by ukj 4y ago
Yes it is a liberal arts degree: no humans - no need for computation. Understanding ourselves and our needs is necessary for inventing; improving or sustaining any technology. Yes it is a STEM degree: no rigor - no computation. Understandin
89.
by ukj 5y ago
>However, if all else isn't equal and you are well acquainted with a Mr Bayes you can probably do all sorts of fancy Mathematics to estimate which model is more likely to be true. But you still need to tell Mr Bayes what your criter
90.
by ukj 5y ago
Well, I am glad you are finding my commentary helpful but I am still no closer to understanding the reasons for your arbitrary choices. Why is it a “recursion conjecture”? Why isn’t it a “Corecursion conjecture”?

More ›