loicd

7 ms·

1.
by loicd 4d ago
> But, again, phonetics doesn't help when twelve words have identical phonetics! You keep missing the point, so I'll try one last time. Look at a picture of the Rosetta stone. I can read Greek but I find the Greek part hard to
2.
by loicd 4d ago
> Japanese is only spoken language like others basically only for small children and idiots. Literate, grown-up Japanese is a written language first. I seriously doubt that. Literacy levels rose in Japan during the Meiji era and that pro
3.
by loicd 5d ago
I don't deny that reading Japanese written in kana alone is currently more painful than with kanji. However, it seems to me that the current writing system is a local optimum and not a global one. If people started writing Japanese u
4.
by loicd 27d ago
> There are uncountably many correct mathematical theorems. Almost all of them can't even be written in symbols. What are you talking about? A theorem is a statement that has been proved from some axioms. A statement itself is a fin
5.
by loicd 3mo ago
The distinction you make is correct in the sense there is indeed a fundamental difference between proving P by assuming not-P and reaching a contradiction and on the other hand proving not-P by assuming P and reaching a contradiction. Howev
6.
by loicd 4mo ago
> Even their inventor had trouble writing correct code in their presence I didn't know that. Could you provide a more specific reference?
7.
by loicd 8mo ago
In addition to $TERM, I wish there was a standard variable defined by terminal emulators that would contain the background color. This would let programs choose their colors accordingly, rather than try for a one-size-fits-all.
8.
by loicd 3y ago
The QWERTY layout has a funny difference with for instance the french AZERTY layout. On an AZERTY keyboard, the parentheses () are directly accessible whereas the square brackets [] are not. On a QWERTY keyboard, this is the opposite : you
9.
by loicd 3y ago
In section II.D: > If one rejects the ERH, one could argue that our universe is somehow made of stuff perfectly described by a mathematical structure, but which also has other properties that are not described by it, and cannot be descri
10.
by loicd 3y ago
> On the other hand, I think you understand it to mean: "true in all models of some latent theory left implicit", where the theory may be ZF(C) or something else depending on context? Yes, that's what I mean. (For me, &quo
11.
by loicd 3y ago
> Systems of mathematics cannot be both complete and consistent No. They can't be at the same times complete, consistent, decidable and powerful enough to express arithmetic. You can do complete, consistent and decidable though.
12.
by loicd 3y ago
> 3. The definition I suggested, where we say P is true iff it holds in some “standard model”; By the way, I wish you would answer my previous objection about that definition in the context of set theory. What is the standard model of ZF
13.
by loicd 3y ago
> This is very far away from my original point Yes, the discussion has deviated, and I don't think we will resolve the disagreement, but I wanted to make my position clearer w.r.t to the claim that "most mathematicians are Plat
14.
by loicd 3y ago
> I suspect that most mathematicians are Platonists (this may be my bias creeping in) and they believe the objects they work with are real > [...] I dispute that rigourous proof is what actually determines truth [...] This is perhaps
15.
by loicd 3y ago
> As per 1, my position is that there is no such thing as “true alone”, at least not in mathematical logic Yes I agree. There is always some context implied if we are being rigorous. But we do use the word "true" alone. Thus, t
16.
by loicd 3y ago
> That doesn’t mean “X is valid”; if something follows from the axioms of set theory then it holds in all models of set theory Yes, I was being elliptic. That should read "X is valid in set theory". The point being that it is a
17.
by loicd 3y ago
> We both agree that there is a clear distinction between formulae that are true in some model (specified, or inferred from context) and formulae that are true in all models; [...] Sure. But I feel we are deviating from the subject. We h
18.
by loicd 3y ago
> I don’t think this is a standard definition. Well, I suppose it depends on your definition of standard. That's how I have been taught logic. I also believe it is the historical notion. Honestly, "true but unprovable" sou
19.
by loicd 3y ago
> You can't claim that's it's even "widely accepted" that the axiom of choice is "true". I have never claimed anything like that. The original comment was a reaction to the notion of "true but unpr
20.
by loicd 3y ago
If you don't have any axioms, the statements that are true in every model are exactly the tautologies (by definition). Usually though, one is interested in a particular set of axioms, typically ZFC. Then "every model" implici
21.
by loicd 3y ago
Exactly. A statement is true by definition if and only if it is satisfied in every model. Also, Gödel also proved the completeness theorem that states that a statement is true if and only if it is provable. So, another way to look at unde
22.
by loicd 3y ago
I think it would make more sense to measure the longest computation in the number of cycles executed rather than in seconds. If I'm not mistaken, Voyager 2 had a processor running at 4MHz. So a modern 2 GHz processor will execute more
23.
by loicd 3y ago
Nice! I got a bit enthusiastic about this: "Modern large language models are powerful but often slow to use and lack information about current events." One of my first questions was "What is the most important thing that happ
24.
by loicd 3y ago
OK, I suppose I have to dig deeper into Rust to determine whether I really disagree with that, or maybe this is too vague. The question is: who applies your workarounds? If this is always the compiler, then I agree, but if the programmer ha
25.
by loicd 3y ago
> Compilers already solve multiple NP-complete problems in the course of compilation after all, for example register allocation. The NP-complete problem is optimal register allocation (through graph coloring). Register allocation in it
26.
by loicd 4y ago
The nature of the elements of the set does not matter, since the existence of a choice function on the set A guarantees the existence of a choice function on the set B as soon as there is a bijection between A and B. Thus, no matters how co
27.
by loicd 4y ago
There are weaker forms, those accepted in intuitionistic logic. The law of excluded middle usually appears in mathematical proofs in the form of reasoning by contradiction: To prove A, assume not-A and reach a contradiction This is
28.
by loicd 4y ago
> The rejection of double-negation elimination is more or less the (rather intuitive) idea that knowing why something must be true doesn't automatically mean you know how it's true. Exactly. There is also the matter of efficien
29.
by loicd 4y ago
The idea that the axiom of choice is guilty of all the non-constructible, weird stuff in mathematics is incorrect. The actual source of non-constructibility is always the law of excluded middle (aka the difference between classical and in
30.
by loicd 4y ago
I am not OP, but it seems to me that there is an obvious problem with it. If you select a truly random set of citizens to rule a country, there are no guarantees that you will get a representative sample of the citizenry. That's simply

More ›