You can even write them in terms of the four-vector A rather than F (related by F = dA) to reduce them to ddA = J.

>welching

Did you mean whinging?

The text you quote is not even part of the article.

But it is related to text that precedes my quote:

> One of the problems the two friends looked at was a version of a century-old unsolved question in geometry.

> “The problem is so easy to state and so easy to understand, but it’s really hard,” said Elizabeth Denne of Washington and Lee University.

> It starts with a closed loop — any kind of curvy path that ends where it starts. The problem Greene and Lobb worked on predicts, basically, that every such path contains sets of four points that form the vertices of rectangles of any desired proportion.

Emphasis mine. The article explicitly describes the problem they solved, only to later point out that they actually solved a different problem.

> It starts with a closed loop — any kind of curvy path that ends where it starts. The problem Greene and Lobb worked on predicts, basically, that every such path contains sets of four points that form the vertices of rectangles of any desired proportion.

> Their final proof — showing the predicted rectangles do indeed exist — transports the problem into an entirely new geometric setting. There, the stubborn question yields easily.

Except that the article then contradicts itself by saying how they haven't actually proved this. They proved it for smooth closed curves, not for any closed curves.

This is a really bizarre article. They seem like they want to describe the math. But they can't bring themselves to do it in a way that might be helpful. They're just waving words around.

And then there's this:

> it’s possible to rotate the Möbius strip in four-dimensional space so that you only change one of the coordinates in each point’s four-coordinate address — like changing the street numbers of all the houses on a block, but leaving the street name, city and state unchanged. (For a more geometric example, think about how holding a block in front of you and shifting it to the right only changes its x coordinates, not the y and z coordinates.)

You can certainly translate a space along an axis without affecting its coordinates along other axes. But that's not a rotation.

Also, it should go down. If you're going to call something vile, you should at least provide some argument to that effect.

Second, and not that it matters, but searching Scott's real name does not link him as the author of SSC, which is what Scott cares about.

Rationalists have written a lot about: - making better arguments, and discursive standards - holding truer beliefs no matter if it goes against your current beliefs or makes you appear "cringeworthy"or "pseudo-intellectual"

Maybe you really ought to check them out?

My reproduced experiment:

https://imgur.com/a/Ppj57cP

Note that there's no reference to his real name.

The only reference to his real name in your screenshot is the first entry, which is purple and removable because it is coming from your browser's session identity history. If this was in fact in an incognito tab, it's likely you had one or more incognito windows simultaneously open somewhere else where you had searched for him, which carried over into your new tab.

There's no evidence that any of the things mentioned came from SneerClub. As far as I know the original doxxing came from some alt-right dude with mental issues on tumblr who thought he was shadowbanned and posted in response to a SA reblog on tumblr 'Care to comment, Scott Alexander [Real Surname], working at [Actual clinic] in [Actual location]?' to which SA replied with 'No one's shadowbanned, you're banned for doxxing me though'. This is all relatively easy to look up and check.

SneerClub was always ever about venting about rationalists when the dumb speculation about evopsych and the IQ of black people went out of hand, and people who have attempted to doxx Scott on there have been banned. (Doxxing people at all is against the rules of reddit anyway.) Yes, it's a circlejerk subreddit, yes it's petty etc. But it's not the evil den of terrorists rationalists think it is.