All have Pr(spontaneous response) > 0.7 when alone or in pairs
But Pr(spontaneous response) < 0.5 when the trio is formed
Sign of the formation of the Trio: Whenever the chat suddenly filled with differential analysis and manifold discussions, all other users will have no response from them
Slereah's spontaneous probability is particularly erractic because there are times he will miss half of the posts on the screen and at times he respond them 100%
I was just thinking about unprovability. I just wanted to know if it is possible to make a concrete boundary between provable problems and unprovable problems in a certain axiomatic system.
We know that there is a statement that is true yet unprovable. Then is it possible that a statement is tr...
There is actually a positive answer to the above seemly nonsensical debate (the dynamics are nonsensical enough for me to blow up part of the h bar as shown above)
@AbhasKumarSinha you are so worry-free. I usually would study today if there is an exam tomorrow even I never studied about that subject on usual days.
I would rather they keep a schedule. If there is one thing about humanity, they need some kind of obligation to keep moving, otherwise the motivation will fade with time
@Secret it will never die, long live 0celo7... at times nearly singlehandedly sustaining it (even in the case of sometimes strong/ fierce "resistance")
@TerryBollinger hi, still into AI? :) am dabbling in it heavily last few wks, fyi am aggressively selling promoting announcing my new AGI theory vzn1.wordpress.com/2018/01/04/…
We haven't had much of an agenda for these sessions for a while, and we don't get as many regulars there on time as we used to, but the room is otherwise pretty lively - I see no danger of it dying, it's in fact much more active than when I joined
A lot of times I get on, I often see differential analysis (manifolds, tangent bundles etc.) discussions, and slereah's inconsistent response pattern makes it seems ... off
@Secret feel like chat has so much possibliity, largely underutilized. think there is a "incentive problem"... lately am dinking around with agi.mit.edu that has a very lively slack channel...
@TerryBollinger I feel that's a mischaracterization - these sessions used to be completely unstructured, then when regular chat picked up, DZ started the agenda thing in an attempt to distinguish them from regular chatting. But really, the original goal of the sessions, that is to get people chatting in the room at all, has long been fulfilled
I remember the days when I joined it was largely just two regulars (now not so regular :P) talking about astro coding :P
Now we got a much larger variety of regulars and topics, some of course more frequent than others, so I think all this pessimism is largely unwarranted
@skullpatrol thx for asking, lots of inquiries/ "maybes" out but it seems to take a lot of persuasion/ handholding and/ or peer pressure to get ppl to commit... also not much interest by other regulars :|
@JohnRennie You don't actually have to cook it into an unrecognizable slime (which is, as you say, among the nastiest things you might find on your plate).
speaking of a AMA like idea, some long time ago, I was trying to do this in another SE chat, but there is not enough thoughts and other things thus it is stalled for now
So recently, I was pondering about historical connections of subjects, such as how concepts, ideas and experiments done in history change the course of humanity as they open new doors to exploration and technologies.
Having been to many panel discussions that covered topics from quantum computin...
@Secret the math room is very busy, suggest try recruiting regular(s) from there... most of the physics sessions ended up being regulars, almost everyone
i go to uchicago, i like diff geo/geometric analysis and ive started taking the baby physics courses here, i just want to have a working knowledge of things so im not blind when people start talking about physics things (which happen to come up frequently in the math i like)
@Blue ok. cool/ great idea. its possible to invite ppl in here if theyve visited chat once but basically my strategy has always been to invite ppl who chat at least once. there are a lot of very high rep users on the site that never visit chat (a pity). but that is not unique to physics, its a SE wide phenomenon.
Anonymous
@ACuriousMind I'm out of words! But QMech is surely shady in the sense that we still don't know his AI status XD
@vzn I think that's a sign SE's design is working - SE's appeal is the very explicit focus on Q&A without any distractions that traditional forums have, and these users are doing precisely that. Chat is a third place and was never really meant to be used by the majority of users
@Blue lol there is precedent, we have done several chat sessions pseudonymously, very flexible on that, dont feel it shouid be dealbreaker, some users do not wish to share much personal details for whatever personal reasons
@ACuriousMind agreed that is an SE design criteria, chat has even been called a ghetto at times, but dont think that its an ideal situation. again think chat has huge potential, and this can be seen in eg new platforms like Slack or gitter that are very high use/ traffic... also SE mgt regularly uses chat for some critical functions such as elections/ "town hall" mtgs etc...
@vzn Sure, chat has potential - but not for what SE is focused on. Chat doesn't directly improve Q&A, it doesn't draw traffic, it doesn't directly generate great content visitors want to see
@ACuriousMind SE is largely managed by its users. SE is all about giving some freedom to those users how to manage it. "SE/ chat is what you make it"™ ... DZ mod spent years building up traffic in this room & current chat engagement seems somewhat related to those historic efforts...
@ACuriousMind i like how that dude collectively refers to himself as an expert too. good to know that astronomy grads with physics background = the same level as R1 theoretical physicist / mathematician
@loocsieulb You can certainly be an expert without being at the very top of your field. I don't see anything snobby about it, and I don't think the equivocation you claim is implied.
@0celo7 ah i see, maybe aubin's book has a more complete treatment? i think it should almost definitely be in his book on nonlinear problems in riemannian geo or w.e. it's called
@ACuriousMind i mean it's using the wide range of the word expert to include oneself which is alright but still. kinda like how a lab technician is a scientist the same way feynman was a scientist. so they could say "scientists like myself and feynman" or they could just leave themselves out of it and address their point without bringing themselves to that level when it doesn't really help their point.
@0celo7 ahahahaha, don't trick yourself into believing that's exceptional :P
You get mathematicians not explaining "standard" lore, you get numerical physicists having large code bases without a single comment, you get experimentalists not describing their setup in enough detail to reproduce them...documentation is usually lacking everywhere :P
@Semiclassical My very unscientific feeling is that the techies not appreciating the humanities is something that was rarer in the past and has become much more common since—to pick a date—the onset of Endless September.
I also have a unscientific feeling that they very smartest kids in my classes are still widely read and accomplished.
Finding the Christoffels, Curvature, Curvature scalar of a conformal metric $\Omega^2 g_{\mu \nu}$, he just gives some huge formulas as if it should be obvious without too much work, they are pretty big
He actually uses the huge scalar in the KK chapter, can't ignore it, but you can actually get the end result a different way which still leads to huge computations apparently :\
