concreteblock

6 ms·

1.
by concreteblock 5y ago
I'm not the OP, but that is part of my belief system. It may seem ridiculous, but I'd be happy to discuss.
2.
by concreteblock 5y ago
> But you didn't choose a compelling form of words to advocate your interest to other people. Why not? I thought it was a good question and the wording was compelling enough.
3.
by concreteblock 5y ago
I think it's fundamentally a question of incentives. A mathematician's career prospects and status depends heavily on being able to prove things that others can't. Why spend extra time helping your 'competitors'? No
4.
by concreteblock 5y ago
The heisenberg uncertainty principle is a different type of uncertainty than the uncertainty modeled by probability distributions.
5.
by concreteblock 5y ago
First part makes sense to me. But second part doesn't. I remember learning and successfully using the p=h* f/c formula in high school physics, but what is the justification for this? And if the formula only holds for photons, why
6.
by concreteblock 5y ago
I may have missed this, but doesn't this just raise the question: Why is the fourier transform of position equal to momentum? I.e why is position conjugate to momentum? More generally, why would the fourier transform of an observable b
7.
by concreteblock 5y ago
If you unwrap a cone you get a circular sector. Similar idea.
8.
by concreteblock 5y ago
Who sold him those shares?
9.
by concreteblock 5y ago
IMO if all it takes is a few simple substitutions like “physics” -> “known laws of physics” to make the article or title make sense, then it’s unfair to say that the author has missed the point. C.f. Reading the strongest possible interp
10.
by concreteblock 5y ago
That's a good point. I guess our current mathematics is not good enough to say much about the macroscopic behaviour of large interacting models.
11.
by concreteblock 5y ago
You are missing the point the article. Author is not trying to argue that AI is 'harder' than physics, like a freshman cs major might argue with their physics friends. Author is talking about how our physical theories, such as QFT
12.
by concreteblock 5y ago
The title is 'clickbait' for sure, but not neccessarily incorrect. After all 'simple' can mean different things to different people. And the author clarifies what he means by 'simple' in the rest of the article
13.
by concreteblock 5y ago
Titles have to be short, and as such they can't hope to represent the contents of the article completely accurately. If you wanted to do that you would have to make the title equal to the article's contents. Based on the parts wh
14.
by concreteblock 5y ago
Why would you even bother responding based on just the headline of the article? The author is not using 'simple' as a synonym for 'easy to learn'.
15.
by concreteblock 5y ago
I don't really care about winning any global arguments. I see bad logic and I try to point it out. If you didn't like that some of your points were easily rebutted then you shouldn't have written them. Leaving them unchalleng
16.
by concreteblock 5y ago
> At no point in time does Kelly give you more wealth with probability 1, Either you're claiming that the theorem I attempted to describe is false, or you're misunderstanding the theorem I am trying to describe. I never wrote a
17.
by concreteblock 5y ago
Okay, I see a link to 'infinity' there, because there are infinitely many reals. Is that what you're going for? If so, the link seems irrelevant and in particular I don't see how this leads to circularity in the definiti
18.
by concreteblock 5y ago
In an effort to understand what you mean by 'induction' and 'infinity', can you explain where induction comes up in the following standard definition of a limit: "f has a limit L at x" means exactly that "
19.
by concreteblock 5y ago
As someone who has taught intro calculus a few times, one reason for the emphasis on computational techniques is simply that 90% of the students in such a class do not care/are not capable of grasping the epsilon-delta definition of t
20.
by concreteblock 5y ago
Yes, I think you’re right. As a mediocre mathematician, I don’t know of anyone in my good-but-not-top PhD program that struggled with computational math. This is the feeling that I got from their relaxed attitude towards TAing those class
21.
by concreteblock 5y ago
> Again, Kelly gives us terrible advice. If you have a trillion to one payout on a coin flip, you want to bet less, not more! Why would you risk half your money, and have a 1/4 chance of losing all your money, when you can bet 1 cen
22.
by concreteblock 5y ago
What exactly do you find arbitrary about this? When gambling or investing, more wealth is better than less wealth. 'Almost surely' is a technical term which means 'with probability 1'.
23.
by concreteblock 5y ago
You obviously wouldn't use Kelly criterion during a poker game because the assumptions don't fit. But on a larger scale it can be used for 'bankroll management' - what proportion of your wealth should you use on a tourna
24.
by concreteblock 5y ago
The first sentence of your post, while technically true, misses the point. This misunderstanding undermines many of your other points. The kelly criterion happens to be optimal with respect to log wealth but that's not the main reason
25.
by concreteblock 5y ago
Elliptic curves is a vast field of study and ECC is a subfield of it. The name kind of suggests this relationship. It’s like hearing that someone works at Microsoft and then asking them about features in MS Word.
26.
by concreteblock 5y ago
Maybe for you. Different explanations work for different people.
27.
by concreteblock 5y ago
Doesn't it just mean that the meaning of the word has changed?
28.
by concreteblock 5y ago
To clarify, since I can't edit: This is coming from my experience as someone who has taught math to teachers getting their master's degree. It sounds mean but I wanted to emphasize that the state of early math education is not ju
29.
by concreteblock 5y ago
Big reason is that many high school math teachers don't really understand math well enough for the job.
30.
by concreteblock 5y ago
Yes, that's correct. There are no edges, it's an infinite grid. You start with 1 black cell and all the other cells are white. Because the triple-white configuration does not produce a black cell, you can compute up the any finite

More ›