EpiMath

5 ms·

1.
by EpiMath 4mo ago
Perhaps you are thinking of the 1927 Solvay Conference? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solvay_conference_1927.jp...
2.
by EpiMath 8mo ago
Thanks! I didn't know this one either.
3.
by EpiMath 1y ago
wow. thank you.
4.
by EpiMath 1y ago
Also Edgar Anderson's "Plants, Man, and Life" on a similar theme.
5.
by EpiMath 2y ago
I'm not very sure about the vinegar + steal wool part... that makes ferrous acetate pretty quickly, and what we want here is a ferro-gallate. I think there are ways of producing ferro-gallate inks without using sulfates, but historica
6.
by EpiMath 2y ago
that's a pretty fun read.
7.
by EpiMath 2y ago
Mint :(
8.
by EpiMath 3y ago
Excellent comment. I'm one of those people who always thought: "I can't draw". Now I understand that for me it is a matter of practice. I started with Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain.
9.
by EpiMath 3y ago
This book is not really addressing the more common "is math real" question of it being empirical or invented. For an interesting take on that question, see the 1st section of the 2nd part of Daniel Shanks' Solved and Unsolve
10.
by EpiMath 3y ago
$62 to access the paper
11.
by EpiMath 3y ago
some of us still make calotypes https://www.flickr.com/groups/1384661@N22/
12.
by EpiMath 3y ago
This could be a big deal if the new vaccines work well, especially if they work well in older people. Hope for the best.
13.
by EpiMath 3y ago
I don't disagree with you, but this is a horribly sad comment. I worry that the text of papers often gives short shrift to nuance and subtlety that is necessary for reasonable interpretation.
14.
by EpiMath 4y ago
Thanks! Did not know about this and now it is on my list of places to visit.
15.
by EpiMath 4y ago
I've also been roasting coffee from Sweet Maria's for many years, and the thing that's useful is that I learned how Tom will describe flavors that I like. So, whether he calls it "hazelnut" or "almond" do
16.
by EpiMath 4y ago
good comment. This seems to come up more in number theory than in foundations/philosophy of mathematics, but I agree is has an important place. Not just triangles, but natural numbers having a fundamental place in reality ( e.g. inte
17.
by EpiMath 4y ago
There was a paper a few years ago in the American Mathematical Monthly ( sorry... can't remember the author, I think it was a Russian mathematician ) that gave some interesting heuristics for why this form is natural to consider, where
18.
by EpiMath 6y ago
Agreed, and current estimates are more on the order of 4 to 5 per million. A high proportion of these cases are among people with a history of anaphylactic reactions to drugs, needle sticks or food/tree nuts ( many were already carryi
19.
by EpiMath 7y ago
If you've got enough math background to follow it, Harold Edwards' Riemann's Zeta Function is a gem of a book and available inexpensively from Dover. There is an English translation of Riemann's paper at the end of th
20.
by EpiMath 8y ago
Agreed. Interesting point about Bayesian methods, whenever there are potential flaws or additional uncertainty, it's better if they are more explicit to prompt thoughtful interpretation.
21.
by EpiMath 8y ago
Yes, okay. There are implicit assumptions in scientific studies ( e.g.: there are no invisible elephants, or the study we are doing is actually related to the question we are investigating! ). Power calculations refer to the model and not
22.
by EpiMath 8y ago
This is why we report statistical power. It does in fact put probabalistic limits on the size of the elephant. In effect, we can make a statement like "at least 90% of studies like ours will detect an elephant larger than 20 microns
23.
by EpiMath 8y ago
Making calotypes is my hobby! Here's another good resource about Talbot https://talbot.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/
24.
by EpiMath 8y ago
Agree Feller is excellent. I don't think it has much in the way of prerequisites and comes at probability from a solid "fundamental understanding" POV. Volume 2 is more difficult but also very good. Don't forget that yo
25.
by EpiMath 9y ago
If you mean Hardy and Wright's Introduction to the Theory of Numbers , I agree it is excellent, but you can solve the great majority of the project Euler problems without going to quite that level. I particularly enjoyed Daniel Shank
26.
by EpiMath 9y ago
For a different take on this, see Dan Shanks' "The case for pythagoreanism" starting on pg. 130 in his classic text Solved and Unsolved Problems in Number Theory: https://archive.org/stream/SolvedAndUnsol
27.
by EpiMath 10y ago
That's amazing, it really does work.
28.
by EpiMath 11y ago
If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well.
29.
by EpiMath 11y ago
And bumblebees
30.
by EpiMath 12y ago
Exactly. This is the reason I keep an old laptop with MS Word running for myself. Fix this and I could go 100% LO.

More ›