« first day (4951 days earlier)      last day (18 days later) » 

12:56 AM
Anyone else get really disturbed when doctors you know recommend alternative medicine?
Like why would I trust my health to pseudoscience
 
 
2 hours later…
3:20 AM
Yes πŸ–οΈπŸ’―
I don't even trust it to the MDs.
 
 
2 hours later…
5:48 AM
Not that i have anything against using main stream medical science, if i needed it.
 
6:12 AM
I dont think the medical system has fully recovered from the strain the pandemic put on it, so they could be more open to alternative medicine.
 
 
2 hours later…
7:51 AM
@SirCumference miao miao will always first defer to MD advice, but doctors are to engineers as opposed to scientists.
 
8:47 AM
hi
 
 
1 hour later…
@JohnRennie I just discovered a fascinating website about ceramics, created by potter / ceramics expert / programmer / Web developer Tony Hansen. I figured you might enjoy browsing it, due to your work with colloids. Eg, digitalfire.com/glossary/colloid
 
clay is tasty
 
@PM2Ring Thanks, I'll have a look. Unilever did a lot of work on clays as they are used as a filler in soap bars. Montmorillonite clays have a fascinating behaviour in water.
 
 
1 hour later…
11:33 AM
There's a current question about evaporative cooling and porosity in earthenware. physics.stackexchange.com/q/815820/123208 While looking for resources on the relationship between temperature and water content of clays I stumbled across the DigitalFire site, and spent an hour or so exploring. :)
Humans have been working and playing with clay since prehistoric times, perhaps even before we could speak. So we've certainly learned a lot about it. But I get the impression that our knowledge of clay hasn't been very well organised, until the last century or so. And I guess a lot of that knowledge wasn't openly shared, but was passed on as trade / guild secrets.
Also, it didn't have the same status as metallurgical knowledge. And because it's found almost everywhere, with a lot of variation in its composition, it's not easy to formulate its properties in a universal systematic way.
 
In cryptography, a zero-knowledge proof or zero-knowledge protocol is a method by which one party (the prover) can prove to another party (the verifier) that a given statement is true, while avoiding conveying to the verifier any information beyond the mere fact of the statement's truth. The intuition underlying zero-knowledge proofs is that it is trivial to prove the possession of certain information by simply revealing it; the challenge is to prove this possession without revealing the information, or any aspect of it whatsoever. In light of the fact that one should be able to generate a proof...
these proofs have an extremely restrictive requirement
u should.be able to prove that u possess some information to a person (and only that person). the proof shouldnt work for anyone else. and u must not reveal the information to anyone
 
11:56 AM
@RyderRude Here's a lovely Japanese song from 1961 by Kyu Sakamoto. Ue o Muite Arukō (aka Sukiyaki) was an international hit, which was pretty remarkable at the time, considering there was still a lot of anti-Japanese sentiment in many Western countries.
@RyderRude There are good answers about that topic on Crypto.SE.
On a related note, there are various data processing algorithms that allow you to do stuff like processing medical data in the cloud without the processing site being able to access the underlying patient data, so privacy isn't compromised.
 
@PM2Ring it has a nostalgic feel
 
Here's a new Japanese tune, by Ami Nakazono (the soprano sax player)
 
12:12 PM
@PM2Ring really cool
 
The Jazz Avengers play a lot of smooth jazz, for commercial reasons, I guess. But they love fusion & funk, and can get pretty wild, when they want to.
 
@PM2Ring oh
@PM2Ring it's soulful
she is missing her childhood in this song
 
Here's some jazz/rock fusion, Led Boots, by Jeff Beck, performed by another Japanese girl group, Muses. Juna from the Jazz avengers is also the bass player in this band. On this track, they have a guy guest playing 2nd guitar.
@RyderRude Here's an insanely good cover of a Carpenters song:
 
12:31 PM
@PM2Ring thanks.. it has great vibes
@PM2Ring wow she sounds just like Karen
modern mainstream singers dont sing like that
 
Tori is remarkable. When she made that video, she'd never sung live in front of an audience.
 
it doesnt seem that way. she has got insane confidence
on a broader scale, all these songs are still modern
this one's a significantly old song that cant be called modern :P
wish we had recordings
 
@naturallyInconsistent That's an interesting way of putting it
 
@SirCumference chatbots might also give good medical advice in the future
 
@naturallyInconsistent I guess you're right. Tho they do usually do some research in medical school, which makes it surprising some of them don't see the scientific method to be as crucial
 
12:50 PM
@RyderRude Here's an old British song, Willy O Winsbury. Wikipedia says that it dates from at least 1775. Here's a performance by jazz / folk group Pentangle. AFAIK, Jacqui the singer and Danny the bass player are still performing (although not together). At least, they were a few years ago. Jacqui keeps releasing old Pentangle clips to YouTube.
 
it's crazy that literally all of the remaining human history will be videotaped, while the initial $0.01 \to 0$% human history will be non-recorded history
@PM2Ring woww
beautiful
it gives lord of the rings vibes
 
Here's a jazzy tune from Pentangle, I've Got A Feeling
@RyderRude I know what you mean. I can imagine them singing that song in Rohan. :)
Here's another one of my favourite Pentangle tunes, Dragonfly. It's an interesting blend of jazz & folk elements. Sorry, there's no video. But the audio quality is excellent.
Danny with John Martyn. Solid Air.
 
1:17 PM
@PM2Ring she can hold the voice for long
@PM2Ring yes.. it would have been epic
@PM2Ring deep lyrics
solid air is the worst nightmare
 
@RyderRude It's a good metaphor for depression, which is what poor Nick Drake suffered from.
Here's an uplifting song from John, May You Never
 
@PM2Ring yes.. it says so in the comment
@PM2Ring great flow
thanks for the songs. cya
 
1:39 PM
@RyderRude A cover of a John Martyn song, by Hattie Whitehead - "Over The Hill"
 
@SirCumference an education that is filled with facts without the reasoning as to why those are facts, leads to functional engineers who have no appreciation that facts are difficult to obtain.
 
@PM2Ring awesome
old singers used to use this sinusoidal voice technique at 0:39
it made them sound like birds
u cud call it a trend of the 1700s
 
2:16 PM
Another old Scottish song from Pentangle, from the 1700s, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trees_They_Grow_So_High (no video)
 
 
2 hours later…
4:52 PM
Are the notions of functions derived from relations on sets? I have a poor understanding of the set theoretic foundations of math
I've only really used naive set theory but I'm aware that logicians have undertaken the task of solidifying set theory in the 1800s-1900s
(Is that also where topology came from?)
 
5:13 PM
You can express functions as relations on sets, yes
Whether they are "derived" from them depends on what you consider fundamental
 
I can't help but feel like logic isn't a real "field"
I haven't the slightest clue what any of these theorems are trying to do, despite scanning wikipedia for the last 15 mins
Tarski's undefinability theorem, stated and proved by Alfred Tarski in 1933, is an important limitative result in mathematical logic, the foundations of mathematics, and in formal semantics. Informally, the theorem states that "arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic". The theorem applies more generally to any sufficiently strong formal system, showing that truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system. == History == In 1931, Kurt Gödel published the incompleteness theorems, which he proved in part by showing how to represent the syntax of formal logic...
Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that are concerned with the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The theorems are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible. The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e. an algorithm...
peano arithmetic just looks like an archaic version of abstract algebra defining $\mathbb{N}$ as an abelian group under addition (assuming he includes 0)
jk you'd need subtraction
well in any case some sort of algebraic structure
I also don't know how to interpret axioms for a "formal system"
I get that you're supposed to follow the rules for those systems but what's the point of constructing incomplete systems in the first place
why do people use ZFC and not the one with classes that seems like a straight upgrade over ZFC
 
the answer to all these questions is that you just need to learn what logic actually is :P
did you never have a math course where you spent the first few weeks proving extremely elementary statements about logic and set theory? Like showing that $A\subset B$ and $B\subset C$ implies $A\subset C$, or de Morgan's laws, etc.
 
It appears, to me, to be a subfield of philosophy concerned with the process of "reasoning" especially concerned with its application to mathematics
Yes, but isn't that just a drop in the bucket of what the field actually is @ACuriousMind
 
there may be something philosophical about it, but no, formal logic is very clearly a subfield of mathematics and you'll find questions about formal logic on MathOverflow, not philosophy.SE
@Obliv sure, but that is the case with essentially every field you ever have a course about, what's your point? :P
 
Well informal logic appears to be closer to other philosophy topics than formal logic anyhow
Well, I'm quickly falling down a rabbit hole which is probably a natural thing and I should just get used to it I guess. I wanted to expand my vision in math by understanding the context of the things I was studying but that quickly turned into clicking links in wiki
 
5:32 PM
most mathematicians simply use ZFC and don't worry about what exactly that means or what alternatives there would be
 
Which hasn't really provided me with any insight on the matter. I found some cool books though. Concepts of mathematics by Ian stewartt seems like a beginner version of what I wanted to accomplish
 
and in many cases it's not really relevant what the underlying axiom system is supposed to be unless you run into something that requires e.g. the axiom of choice
 
I guess I just got curious because even in munkres topology text, he mentions (I'm not at home so I can't do screenshots)
"We adopt, as most mathematicians do, the naive point of view regarding set theory.
We shall assume that what is meant by a set of objects is intuitively clear, and we shall
proceed on that basis without analyzing the concept further. Such an analysis properly
belongs to the foundations of mathematics and to mathematical logic, and it is not our
purpose to initiate the study of those fields.
Logicians have analyzed set theory in great detail, and they have formulated axioms for the subject. Each of their axioms expresses a property of sets that mathematicians commonly accept, and collective
So I naturally just wanted to know what he was talking about but people tell me it's not worth going into that stuff right now
 
I mean Munkres says explicitly that you might wish to look into that "At some point of your studies", i.e. long after the point at which you read Munkres :P
 
Probably displays my ignorance but did all this work on consistency and logic etc really help our understanding that much? I mean, Godel seems to have been a pretty bright student and was going to study physics had he not attended a lecture by Hilbert on consistency and completeness in mathematical systems
I guess it was pretty important in the context of computers
 
5:39 PM
not really for computers, no
the importance is more that without resolving the fundamental questions of logic, you can't explain why or why not things like Russell's paradox are a problem
the program of Hilbert was to put mathematics on a foundation where we can be sure it does not contain any such paradoxical statements
 
whoah what the heck
Gödel's Loophole is an "inner contradiction" in the Constitution of the United States which Austrian-American logician, mathematician, and analytic philosopher Kurt Gödel postulated in 1947. The loophole would permit the American democracy to be legally turned into a dictatorship. Gödel told his friend Oskar Morgenstern about the existence of the flaw and Morgenstern told Albert Einstein about it at the time, but Morgenstern, in his recollection of the incident in 1971, never mentioned the exact problem as Gödel saw it. This has led to speculation about the precise nature of what has come to be...
Ok maybe studying logic has its benefits
Yeah I'm just gonna study math/physics it seems infinitely more enjoyable than something like formal logic
I think if I were trying to become a lawyer or politician it might be more useful though
 
not really
neither law nor politics use formal logic :P
that's more the classical art of rhetoric
 
Oh I thought that was a burn
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises due to the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. It examines arguments expressed in natural language while formal logic uses formal language. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a logical formal system that articulates a proof system....
I can't understand informal logic
just sounds like rhetoric as you described
 
6:27 PM
How good is this answer do you guys think
5
A: Can you explain Navier-Stokes equations to a layman?

user140606This is my view of some physical phenomena that The Navier Stokes equations can be applied to, and why they are so complicated. It centers around oddness, counter intuitive behaviour of physical systems that we are trying to model using mathematics. Odd Behaviour #1 If you measure the frict...

I can understand most of it I think. Really cool systems to model imo.
I wonder if videogames/simulations can model these behaviours (especially the water flow ones)
like some pseudo random turbulent flow
 
no video game models fluids "correctly" - why would it?
 
7:12 PM
Idk, to simulate stuff irl so people don't have to "touch grass"
@ACuriousMind is category theory at all used in physics?
It seems to try to generalize a lot of stuff in mathematics, kind of like organizing the last 100+ years of definitions :D
I guess not really useful for physics, other than being a language to talk about useful things in math for physics like group theory in ST
 
May 3, 2023 at 23:28, by ACuriousMind
category theory is much the same - for some people, this organizing abstraction aligns extremely well with their aesthetic and the way they think about things, for others it's an alien mindset that invents a completely new language to state the obvious as convolutedly as possible
 
What camp are you in?
 
7:32 PM
@ACuriousMind 0fps.net/2013/06/04/… was reading this, it seems like category theory is useful in programming somehow
 
Apr 2, 2022 at 1:45, by ACuriousMind
It's possible to write Haskell without really engaging with the theory of monads, but you can make the argument that category theory is very relevant there
 
wow I thought en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_theory it made sense to do the reverse lol, because I was seeing the connection to linear algebra to abstract alg
 
it's entirely useless in most mainstream programming languages :P
 
it always weirds me out seeing pretty abstract pure math stuff being used for CS wiki pages
 
why? theoretical CS and math are really not that far from each other
 
7:39 PM
have you not read nlab
Everything is a monad
 
I guess the hardware part of CS is physics originated and the actual logic systems and languages are pure math
 
the thing is, however, that theoretical CS and what the average programmer does are pretty far from each other :P
 
Yeah, for some reason I thought comp sci used just some relatively applied mathematics in the context of the limitations of the physical hardware
like watered down math in a sense
 
large parts of cs don't even concern themselves with the notion of "hardware"
 
I guess it's as complicated as one wants to make it, pulling in concepts from active research areas in pure maths if one wishes
 

« first day (4951 days earlier)      last day (18 days later) »