Readit News logoReadit News
hansen commented on Why tensors? A beginner's perspective   mfaizan.github.io/2022/03... · Posted by u/mfn
xyzzyz · 3 years ago
That was explanation from a perspective of someone acquainted with modern physics. As such, it will make sense to physicist, but no sense to most everyone else, including mathematicians who don’t know modern physics.

For example, in the beginning, author describes tensors as things behaving according to tensor transformation formula. This is already very much a physicist kind of thinking: it assumes that there is some object out there, and we’re trying to understand what it is in terms of how it behaves. It also uses the summation notation which is rather foreign to non-physicist mathematicians. Then, when it finally reaches the point where it is all related to tensors in TensorFlow sense, we find that there is no reference made to the transformation formula, purportedly so crucial to understanding tensors. How comes?

The solution here is quite simple: what author (and physicists) call tensors is not what TensorFlow (and mathematicians) call tensors. Instead, author describes what mathematicians call “a tensor bundle”, which is a correspondence that assigns each point of space a unique tensor. That’s where the transformation rule comes from: if we describe this mapping in terms of some coordinate system (as physicist universally do), the transformation rule tells you how to this description changes in terms of change of the coordinates. This setup, of course, has little to do with TensorFlow, because there is no space that its tensors are attached to, they are just standalone entities.

So what are the mathematician’s (and TensorFlow) tensors? They’re actually basically what the author says, after very confusing and irrelevant introduction talking about change of coordinates of underlying space — irrelevant, because TensorFlow tensors are not attached as a bundle to some space (manifold) as they are on physics, so no change of space coordinates ever happens. Roughly, tensors are a sort of universal objects representing multi linear maps: bilinear maps V x W -> R correspond canonically one-to-one to regular linear maps V (x) W -> R, where V (x) W is a vector space called tensor product of V and W, and tensors are simply vectors in this tensor product space.

Basically, the idea is to replace weird multi linear objects with normal linear objects (vectors), that we know how to deal with, using matrix multiplication and stuff. That’s all there is to it.

hansen · 3 years ago
To be a bit pedantic: the identification of tensors with multilinear forms requires finite dimensions (or reflexive topological spaces).
hansen commented on String Theory Does Not Win a Nobel, and I Win a Long Bet   blogs.scientificamerican.... · Posted by u/Osiris30
bufferoverflow · 6 years ago
It should really be called String Hypothesis. Theories in science are generally for something that's near 100% proven.
hansen · 6 years ago
Physicists and philosophers of science give those terms different meanings. E.g. what a philosopher of science would call a theory is called model by physicists. What physicists call a theory is more a broad framework in which more concrete models can be build.

From the view of a philosopher of science string theory isn’t even a hypothesis as a hypothesis needs to be testable

hansen commented on The Gravitational-Wave “Revolution” Is Underway   scientificamerican.com/ar... · Posted by u/LinuxBender
jackcosgrove · 6 years ago
I am a complete neophyte regarding these topics. I did notice that the detected events (black holes merging, neutron stars merging) seem really exotic, while I assume gravitational waves are all around us all the time. Is our instrumentation for detecting gravitational waves simply very insensitive compared to the instrumentation used to detect electromagnetic waves? Or are they harder to detect for some more fundamental reason?
hansen · 6 years ago
Spacetime is extremely stiff or equivalently gravity extremely weak. Only these extreme events result in detectable gravitational waves.
hansen commented on Firefox Now Available with Enhanced Tracking Protection by Default   blog.mozilla.org/blog/201... · Posted by u/teddyfrozevelt
hn_throwaway_99 · 6 years ago
It appears this would block pretty much all the major analytics tracking cookies (e.g. Google analytics, mixpanel, etc.) based on the linked Disconnect list, https://disconnect.me/trackerprotection .

While I realize that's kind of the point, in my mind there is somewhat of a difference between "the site I'm on is tracking me to figure out how I use their site" vs. "any site I visit is essentially aggregated data because all the sites use the same major trackers and ad networks". I wonder if the big analytics companies will need to change their business model, or at least their tech, to account for these kinds of changes.

hansen · 6 years ago
I doubt there are many users out there who care if someones analytics stuff breaks.
hansen commented on Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics (2015)   mitpress.mit.edu/sites/de... · Posted by u/Tomte
fspeech · 6 years ago
What is a good reference from the symplectic geometry angle?
hansen · 6 years ago
The standard (but rather heavy and difficult) is

Abraham, Marsden: Foundations of Mechanics

More gentle is

Vladimir Arnold: Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics

hansen commented on Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics (2015)   mitpress.mit.edu/sites/de... · Posted by u/Tomte
jessriedel · 6 years ago
Sussman is one of the very few classical mechanics textbooks that gives a reasonable definition of the Legendre transform. Most physicists cannot actually tell you what that transform is, even though it sits at the heart of both classical and quantum mechanics.

http://blog.jessriedel.com/2017/06/28/legendre-transform/

hansen · 6 years ago
I don’t think the typical “change of variables” definition is bad. You take the derivative of L along the fiber of the tangent bundle. If the derivative is non-singular it defines an isomorphism in each point of the tangent space with the cotangent space. And that’s the important thing, going from the tangent bundle to the cotangent bundle. Now we can use all the beauty of symplectic geometry
hansen commented on What Is a Manifold?   bastian.rieck.me/blog/pos... · Posted by u/Pseudomanifold
math_and_stuff · 6 years ago
Both of those are typically referred to as manifolds with boundary. The setting of Stokes Theorem is often manifolds with boundary.
hansen · 6 years ago
Mathematicians messed up here… A manifold with boundary is not a manifold. But a manifold is a manifold with boundary (the empty set).
hansen commented on LIGO gravitational wave detectors that hunt for ripples in space-time upgraded   npr.org/2019/03/19/701498... · Posted by u/bookofjoe
v_lisivka · 6 years ago
Theory of Ether, of course. Waves in Ether is like waves in water. :-/
hansen · 6 years ago
Gravitational waves are disturbances in a background spacetime, i.e. you linearize the Einstein equations around a given solution. The analogy is less bad as one might initially think
hansen commented on VLC developers refuse to consider updates over HTTPS   trac.videolan.org/vlc/tic... · Posted by u/GordonS
Eli_P · 7 years ago
Oracle's practiced the same policy with VirtualBox distributions and that's been fine because they signed packages. VideoLAN signs their packages too. It seems to be a common practice for a highly loaded services to outsource as many cryptography to clients as possible. I think for the same reasons Google dropped CSRF tokens for their api in favor of different security measures.
hansen · 7 years ago
I always thought it's more about caching
hansen commented on Why is Maxwell's theory so hard to understand? (2007) [pdf]   damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong... · Posted by u/fanf2
weedwarrior · 7 years ago
what you expounding upon is [1] of the indicators that we dont completely understand physics at the "point charge" scale, and very possible there is no such thing as a point charge, rather there is a centroid of field intensty/probability I.E. a wave function. point charges are likely an overly simplified view, and artefactual convienience of extrapolation.
hansen · 7 years ago
The problems in the classical theory are easily understood. The charge and current densities of point particles are not smooth functions but distributions (think of the Dirac δ-“function”). If they act as the sources of the EM field the EM field itself becomes singular. Now if you try to solve the full Maxwell equations including the backreaction of matter & radiation fields you would have to multiply distributions which is ill defined.

There are similar problems in the quantum theory but the divergences are less severe and can be dealt with in a systematic way. Most physicist believe they will totally disappear in some more fundamental underlying theory. From a mathematicians point of view there is the hope that at least some QFTs are finite and the divergences are just an artifact of the construction & pertubation theory.

u/hansen

KarmaCake day300March 19, 2010View Original