Stack Exchange
log in

JonathanZ

 Discussion on question by Speakpigeon…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
yst 17:24
Well, I do. That's a start.
 

 Discussion on question by Kai Le: Can…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Sat 12:01
"Can you truly understand ... ". That word "truly" there is doing a lot of vague, unspecified work in your question.
 

 Discussion on question by pola97277: …

Imported from a comment discussion on math.stackexchange.com/q...
JonathanZ
Tue 18:51
Yes, this is a "reasonable people can disagree" issue, but doesn't " a reasonable space has a unique decomposition into a disjoint union of connected components" mean that the empty set isn't a "reasonable space"?
JonathanZ
Tue 18:51
Can't the set of connected components be empty?
 

 Discussion on question by More Anonym…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Jun 28 09:26
Or maybe it's the best. I'm not sure which side of this argument I fall on, and I'm also a bit uncertain which side this bit of etymological trivia helps and which side it hurts.
JonathanZ
Jun 28 09:26
@ScottRowe - The really ironic thing is that using pebbles to do arithmetic only requires you to push them around according to a few basic rules - you don't really have to understand what's going on. And that's the meaning that's been used in math, although most people don't realize it. Newton didn't call what he invented "calculus", but Leibniz wrote down the simple rules that we now teach to teenagers. Similarly, lambda calculus is so automatic that we taught it to machines. Basically, I get what was intended by the example of rocks, but it's the absolutely worst choice for me. 😄
JonathanZ
Jun 28 09:26
I'm not sure about rocks computing, but a small pebble is calculus.
 

 Discussion on question by Miss Unders…

Imported from a comment discussion on math.stackexchange.com/q...
JonathanZ
Jun 21 16:25
Transposition in a unary operator, group operators are binary.
 

 Discussion on question by gaazkam: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Jun 12 22:28
Your religion is none of my business. Their gender is none of your business.
 

 Discussion on question by Ashish Shuk…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
May 31 08:15
This website is not your blog.
 

 Discussion on question by Syed: Is an…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
May 30 00:54
Isn't "omnipotence and being purple" more improbable?
 

 Discussion on question by Stdugnd4ikb…

Imported from a comment discussion on math.stackexchange.com/q...
JonathanZ
May 22 17:44
Aha! No, you cannot algebraically manipulate the first into the second. It is when you take the limit that "$B$ turns into $b$". Let's use the Wikipedia proof. Look at the line just before the last line - the $f(x)$ is just a constant w.r.t. $\Delta x$, so $\lim f(x)$ is trivial, but $g(x+\Delta x)$ requires you to make an argument about what happens when $\Delta x \to 0$ - that your $B$ turning into $b$.
JonathanZ
May 22 17:44
Cool. I think you'll have a better time if you pay close attention to what algebraic manipulations take place before taking the limit, and what takes place after taking limits. Good luck.
JonathanZ
May 22 17:44
@Stdugnd4ikbd - I hope you're not planning on taking a statement about the equality of limits and using it to argue that the quantities without the limits are also equal. ;-)
JonathanZ
May 22 17:44
@lulu - +1 for identifying poor handling of limits as the key error.
 

 Discussion on question by Ashish Shuk…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
May 20 09:05
LLMs are very much not impartial. They are entirely dependent on the corpus chosen to train them on, and people are using more and more uncritical corpuses.
 

 Discussion on question by Scott Rowe:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
May 17 18:13
"subjunctive", not "subjective". It was a joke. I guess it was a failed joke. Oh well, I've never let that stop me. :-)
JonathanZ
May 17 18:13
Maybe first answer the simpler question: If I were to say something is subjunctive, would that make it the case?
 

 Discussion on question by Lorenzo Gil…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
May 6 15:15
Instead of ten comments in a row you should edit the question to include those details. It is a real pain to read otherwise.
 

 Discussion on question by Ashish Shuk…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
May 3 09:29
Horny 12 year old boys might not be the best test case for discussing any philosophical issues others may find in the story. Additionally, "I didn't move by elbow away" adds the issue that you had the intention of being a sex pest, but were only saved from actually furthering the act by your misperception, not any quality of character. If people really want to have a question relating to the issues they see here, maybe find examples without violations of personal space?
 

 Discussion on question by Syed: Do ex…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Apr 20 23:50
It seems like you don't think an explanation is worthy of the name "explanation" if any part of it can be further explained by something that seems more basic, fundamental, or "ultimate". That's not part of the usual meaning of "explanation", so you would have to provide further details on exactly what you want, if that is in fact what is happening.
 

 Discussion on question by BlueInfinit…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Apr 19 17:14
The blithe transition from "self-preservation" to "self-interest" in the text of the question is, to me, stunning. Until the OP distinguishes between the two I think this is unanswerable.
 

 Discussion on answer by Ted Wrigley: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Mar 29 23:28
@Michael - For other readers I'll post one - they can easily find many more: "In Deuteronomy 22:22-23, if a man rs a married woman within a town, the woman is put to death alongside the perpetrator of the crime." I guess that "don't be rd" is implicitly one of the rules?
JonathanZ
Mar 29 23:28
So those parts of the holy texts aren't part of the faith, or maybe aren't part of the "pure" faith? That's not an argument, that's redefining the term "faith".
JonathanZ
Mar 29 23:28
"if every person accepted and practiced that faith earnestly and diligently, the world would be a fairly pleasant place". I think that's too rosey. Lots of holy texts advocate violence.
 

 Discussion on question by Meta Logici…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Feb 22 09:27
How did you know what "this" was referring to in my comment?
 

 Discussion on answer by Michael Hall:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Feb 20 01:00
@NotThatGuy - Sadly, I am hobbled by years of doing math, where the standards of "proof" are very rigorous, and where we will entertain unreasonable doubts - and sometimes those unreasonable doubt turn out to be valid. But if that's a good standard for epistemology then that's good to know. I just wanted to re-emphasize that we are changing our standards (which the answer does make fairly clear, but might go by unnoticed by some).
JonathanZ
Feb 20 01:00
@MichaelHall - Okay, so you want to prove your version of god exists using only evidence that is not reproducible. That's a fine strategy, and it's good to have a clear understanding that that is the extent of your god.
JonathanZ
Feb 20 01:00
It's highly dependent on what functions the "god" in question is supposedly performing. Like most of the god questions here, this one is ridiculously under-specified.
JonathanZ
Feb 20 01:00
Worth noting that, at least in the American justice system, a defendant is never found "innocent", merely "not guilty". Legal standards are biased in very particular directions, and you might not want to adopt those standards to other areas.
 

 Discussion on answer by Jo Wehler: Ho…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Jan 27 12:46
But human language is sinful and wrong! :-)
 

 Discussion on answer by Jo Wehler: Ho…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Jan 24 18:32
But human language is sinful and wrong! :-)
 

 Discussion on question by lee pappas:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Jan 22 06:54
Meh. Any slightly math-y 10th grader can correct Grothendieck and/or Weyl.
JonathanZ
Jan 22 06:54
Calling a physicist is idiotic? Okay, I guess I won't call a physicist then.
JonathanZ
Jan 22 06:54
Man, all those idiots going around demanding definitions.
 

 Mathematics

Associated with Math.SE; for both general discussion & math qu...
4
JonathanZ
Jan 16 20:34
@XanderHenderson Thanks for the feedback
JonathanZ
Jan 16 20:07
What do people think?
JonathanZ
Jan 16 20:07
The answer on this policy that I found on Meta indicated "if you address the criticisms that lead to it being deleted, then re-post away", but I can't tell why it was deleted, and I can't really say anything of why it's a good question, other than "I found a fun answer"
JonathanZ
Jan 16 20:04
I found a fun little counterexample that I'd like to post, but, as is, it's probably a "not enough context", just-dropped-their-homework question.
JonathanZ
Jan 16 20:03
math.stackexchange.com/questions/5024017/…
JonathanZ
Jan 16 20:03
Would people think this question is worth me re-asking. It was posted and then deleted within an hour, after receiving almost zero attention, positive or negative
 

 Discussion on answer by CriglCragl: D…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Jan 12 20:32
@CriglCragl - You are striving.
 

 Discussion on question by Jose S.: Sp…

Imported from a comment discussion on math.stackexchange.com/q...
JonathanZ
Jan 9 19:15
@MoisheKohan - Thank you. I wondered what kind of strange counterexamples might exist. But since it didn't look like the OP was familiar with this basic term, I thought I'd bring it to their attention. I'm guessing there isn't a term for exactly what they've described, but will be curious to see what comes up.
JonathanZ
Jan 9 19:15
Homogeneous spaces
 

 Discussion on question by Muhammad Ik…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Jan 7 10:44
Notice that we just assume that race is there in the data. And that's because race is deeply embedded in our society. And, as you point out, there are lots of noxious racist beliefs embedded in there with them. It feels like the question is coming from an assumption that "the AI" is coming from a place of pure deduction, and doesn't realize how much of recent models are built on stuff people have produced, and plenty of it is rather dumb and prejudiced.
JonathanZ
Jan 7 10:44
Who decided that race should be an input to the model? And who decided what "race" each individual is? There is a fairly large component of social construct in race.
 

 Discussion on question by Scott Rowe:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Jan 7 09:42
Because it's good that he caused all the hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes.
 

 Discussion on question by BoltStorm: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JonathanZ
Dec 29, 2024 12:45
I made multiple suggestions, and I am now done interacting with you. good luck
JonathanZ
Dec 29, 2024 12:45
I have suggested how to take things multiple times, and you have rejected all of them as inappropriate. Are you imagining that I would all of a sudden start coming up with suggestions that are appropriate for you?
JonathanZ
Dec 29, 2024 12:45
I have certainly learned a lot about interacting with autistic people, and will pay attention the next time someone mentions that they are.