vitriol83

5 ms·

1.
by vitriol83 5d ago
But Mochizuki didn't actually prove anything, whereas the labs have already done so. The pessimistic scenario is the AI labs will continuously hoover up new developments in mathematics and gazump everyone in their respective fields. It
2.
by vitriol83 11d ago
facepalm yet pure mathematics has been instrumental in all scientific progress in modern human history including LLMs, very short sighted view
3.
by vitriol83 11d ago
You're stating it's not a problem- but I'm giving you a reason why it is. This is serendipitously mirrored by a recent post from Terence Tao on Mastodon ( https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117207856734787448 ) I
4.
by vitriol83 11d ago
yes society has let the trillion dollar company down
5.
by vitriol83 12d ago
i find this and other efforts from anthropic somewhat antisocial. technically they have achieved their goal, but in a way which does not benefit mathematics or humanity. Kevin Buzzards headline goal was to formalise FLT, but i’m sure the re
6.
by vitriol83 2mo ago
the Ramanujan one has some relatively high powered mathematical explanation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heegner_number
7.
by vitriol83 3mo ago
majority of parents are in favour of such a ban, otherwise they wouldn't do it if social media companies hadn't made social media a total cesspit of disinformation, child grooming and algorithmic manipulation then the outcome migh
8.
by vitriol83 3mo ago
mathlib and lean are currently too cumbersome for many researchers to use in say algebraic geometry, but maybe more suitable for combinatorics where it has been applied recently.
9.
by vitriol83 3mo ago
this has templeOS vibes
10.
by vitriol83 5mo ago
Formalised proofs and Lean in particular are still too cumbersome for the ``working'' mathematician to use it day-to-day for research-level math. But clearly there is some interest on where it may take us in future.
11.
by vitriol83 6mo ago
this seems to be the way. make great technical improvement in a way that's nothing to do with AI. the only way to make executives happy is to then tenuously link it to AI usage.
12.
by vitriol83 6mo ago
In my field which involves large legacy codebases in C++ and complex numerical algorithms implemented by PhDs. LLMs have their place but improvements in productivity are not that great because current LLMs simply make too many mistakes in t
13.
by vitriol83 11mo ago
are there any tools to convert large latex documents to typst ? it looks a huge improvement, but the migration path is the only thing that's stopping me.
14.
by vitriol83 4y ago
In places where there is not much time for code refactoring, the following is helpful: Imagine an idealised future state of the codebase, which everyone buys into, and make sure any new feature is going in that direction. Refactoring existi
15.
by vitriol83 4y ago
So many times it’s necessary to ‘identify’ two more objects which are isomorphic, and the ‘canonical’ is supposed to justify why this doesn’t cause a problem. The reason it is necessary here is that the mapping D(f) -> A_f is a priori mu
16.
by vitriol83 4y ago
This is fairly obscure but the problem he highlights can be overcome easily by localising at the saturation of S_f, for D(f)=D(g) if and only if the saturations are equal, and localising at saturation is an isomorphism
17.
by vitriol83 5y ago
Stacks, like EGA before it, is a wonderful reference but a terrible textbook. I think even the authors would agree with this! Fortunately there are many other books from which to learn algebraic geometry, after which Stacks will start to ma
18.
by vitriol83 5y ago
Modern Algebraic Geometry is indeed highly abstract, but generally the conjuring of obscure objects is with a specific goal in mind, for example - consolidation of many types of results into a `simple' theoretical framework, I suppose
19.
by vitriol83 7y ago
They’re all very relevant, but I try not to expect the same from OSS projects as from a VC pitch deck. After all this is work given freely.
20.
by vitriol83 7y ago
I’m generally positive on rewriting openssl in rust, but agree the comparisons aren’t completely scientific or necessarily more important than correctness. First you should compare performance using the same implementations of cryptographic
21.
by vitriol83 8y ago
one issue with OOP in practice that I've seen is the entanglement of the domain representation (member variables of a class) and the varied operations on that data (methods). Classic OOP encourages you to manipulate objects by methods
22.
by vitriol83 8y ago
The difficulty with learning 'modern' algebraic geometry is not only is it very dense and general, but that means the original motivation can become lost. So I think understanding Weil conjectures are key for modern algebraic geom
23.
by vitriol83 8y ago
Writing a type checker is conceptually much more specialised than just a scripting language. Certainly I have no idea how to write one!
24.
by vitriol83 8y ago
Can anyone suggest a good embedded language with static or at least optional typing ? I feel this is a gap in the market for embedded languages.
25.
by vitriol83 11y ago
couldn't agree more, see e.g. similar restrictions in well-known bastions of socialism singapore, denmark and australia. non-resident investment in manhattan is literally rent-seeking. perhaps if the foreign investment was redirected
26.
by vitriol83 11y ago
interesting article. a few more points which may be of interest - in addition to raid it's worth having automated off-site backup. the best solution i could find is duplicity as its encrypted and supports a bunch of backends. - freebsd
27.
by vitriol83 11y ago
Citation needed. Plenty of people regard high-level languages as nonetheless suitable 'systems programming'. This is the first FAQ on golang.org! See also https://ocaml.github.io/ocamlunix/
28.
by vitriol83 11y ago
I don't think that one can necessarily equate systems programming with manual memory management (see e.g. Go). It's true that manual memory management will (probably) be more efficient and more predictable, but ultimately depends
29.
by vitriol83 11y ago
The article is comparing Rust principally to Python (a new dynamically typed language) and C++ (an old statically typed language). It's certainly plausible that it can bring benefits over these. More interesting to me would be comparin
30.
by vitriol83 11y ago
this is always a tension in writing mathematics textbooks. at one end of the extreme you have e.g. Bourbaki which are very dry, but prove a great deal very efficiently and in the utmost generality. on the other hand you have textbooks which

More ›