Why?
For me it's also that it works as a joke setup, just like "ligma" or "updog".
Readit Newsmtizim commented on Show HN: Pegma, an open-source version of the classic Peg solitaire pegma.vercel.app... · Posted by u/GlebShalimov
mtizim commented on Dubious Math in Infinite Jest (2009) thehowlingfantods.com/dfw... · Posted by u/rafaepta
> That's what's so cool about math: it could not possibly be any different.
Why not? There's not much tethering our axioms-on-paper to what is necessarily true, past what we can empirically observe. For instance, a universe that is "exactly like ours, except the truth of the continuum hypothesis is flipped" seems no less conceivable than our own universe, given that we don't even have any solid evidence for its truth or falsehood in the first place.
If we're willing to treat mathematical and logical ideas as physically contingent, then it's only a few further steps to "the concepts of identity and discreteness and measure in this universe are different than ours, so all our mathematical axioms are not applicable". Though it would be very difficult to translate any stories from such a universe into our own ideas.
Why not? Exactly because there is nothing tethering our axioms on paper to what is necessarily true. You could formulate something wildly different from ZF±C/Peano/whatever normal axiom system, but we wouldn't call it "math", and what we currently call "math" will work under any conditions
I appreciate you taking the time to help people understand higher level concepts.
From a different perspective... I have no traditional background in mathematics or physics. I do not understand the first line of the pdf you posted nor do I understand the process for obtaining the context to understand it.
But I have intellectual curiosity. So the best path forward for me understanding is a path that can maintain that curiosity while making progress on understanding. I can reread the The Six (Not So ) Easy Pieces and not understand any of it and still find value in it. I can play with Arnold's cat and, slowly, through no scientific rigor other than the curiosity of the naked ape, I can experience these concepts that have traditionally been behind gates of context I do not possess keys to.
With no mathematical rigor there is no mathematical understanding. You are robbing yourself, as the concepts are meaningless without the context.
Truly appreciate the power of linear approximations by going through algebra, appreciate the tricks of calculus, marvel at the inherent tradeoffs of knowledge with estimator theory, and see the joy of the central limit theorem being true. All of this knowledge is free, and much more interesting than a formal restatement of "it was not supposed to rain, but I see clouds outside, I guess I'll expect light rain instead of a big thunderstorm".
Good lord what a horrible recommendation. This is like telling someone to learn programming by starting with assembly.
If you want to actually learn subtractive synthesis minus the complexity use an all in one synth VST like Surge which is free and open source and you won't have to worry about tedious fundamentals that don't actually matter unless you're doing modular synthesis. Helm is another great VST.
Once you understand subtractive you can graduate to more complicated methods of synthesis like FM, vector, ETC.
I don't agree at all, vcv rack helped me understand synthesis in a much deeper way than I would have otherwise. What's a retrigger? Oscillator drift? Why do you modulate with a lfo? These are much simpler to understand when you're patching modules by hand in vcv, especially when you start with a blank slate.
On the other hand, before vcv, seeing a vst synth just had me overwhelmed instead.
I'd recommend everyone reading this to get free vcv + the surge vcv library, and just play around with it.
mtizim commented on A visual proof that a^2 – b^2 = (a + b)(a – b) futilitycloset.com/2024/1... · Posted by u/beardyw
The concept of negative area still feels like it'd get messy in a hurry. For a square pillar, the side lengths should be the same, suddenly giving you imaginary lengths just for the eventual area subtraction to work out. For a negative volume though, you need cubic roots of unity for the side lengths, throwing off your area calculations. Has anyone actually put together a system where the sort of concept you're describing is cohesive?
You're in for a nice trip, the concept is called Geometric Algebra:
https://youtu.be/60z_hpEAtD8?si=HHs_9m0IJ43nfI3S (~50m video)
TLDW: Yes, the concept is there, makes much more sense than a cross product (which is just an oriented area) and generalizes really nicely.
Alternatively, read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivector
While technically true, this could still be a great trade for all involved.
If you invest in shares in a company, you are a link in the chain to that company existing at all, employing people, serving customers, and paying a dividend to shareholders. Employees have a job and income without the need to come up with the initial capital to start the venture and the associated risk of no income for a while.
If you invest in real estate, you are providing the capital that allows someone to have shelter (and maybe allowing a property management firm to also employ people). Tenants have shelter without the need to buy an entire lifetime of a house that they only want to live in for a few years and without the hassles of being tied down to a specific address (in the event their relationship status or family size evolves or a job improvement arrives 50 or 200 miles away) or buying and selling houses frequently as these changes tend to happen frequently early in adult life.
Neither is something that you had to wipe sweat off your brow this particular month, but it is a deployment of foregone consumption in the past that allowed you to make those investments. Now that previously foregone consumption is being returned to you.
Both can be true.
- Investing provides benefits for society at large - Investors are exploiting the labour of others for their own gain
(but also your examples only work in a very weird worldview where everything is privatised, but I don't want to bother discussing that on this website)
mtizim commented on Show HN: Rust GUI Library via Flutter cjycode.com/posts/rust-ui... · Posted by u/fzyzcjy
Cool, but the point of having stuff in Rust is to ideally have everything in Rust, or you're by definition not getting all the safety benefits of Rust.
Not at all, pretty much all popular languages (except C/C++) are as safe as (safe) rust. The only safety rust brings to the table is memory safety, which most languages achieve with a runtime and a garbage collector, which have a performance tradeoff.
mtizim commented on Mechanical computer relies on kirigami cubes, not electronics news.ncsu.edu/2024/06/kir... · Posted by u/gnabgib
I believe a NAND gate is required as the base on which all other possible circuits can be built, so they need just to add an inverter for potential turing completeness.
It's not, we just use NAND everywhere because they're easier to make with transistors. You can get functional completeness with a NOR instead, or alternatively with some different combinations of other logical operators.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_completeness
We even implement AND gates with NANDs in electronics (because they're way simpler), but we might not have to limit ourselves to a single base gate with mechanical computers.
In my experience, 100% of all people who use the word "normie" unironically are shitty, shallow, superficial people.
If you stop squinting, you'll see that neither the average exclusive activity enthusiast, nor a person using "normie" unironically are shallow nor superficial.
Maybe your experience can be explained by how you see these people, not by how these people actually are.
> (or worse)
Whatever you do, don't look in the mirror.
do look in the mirror, don't panic, face your fears, and look away full of love.