Update: the review that set me on that future trail was this
https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.06572
Note: percival applied significant patch to KAM
My recollection of the basic problem in reconciling QM with GR is that of simultaneity: how do you manage to have an "open" future when various potential observers' future-fronts are all angled to each other?
I'd guess that the hyperbolic nature of light cones mean [hands waving madly enough to fly me to Africa] that there's enough wiggle room such that any conflict-resolving process occurring at space-like separations has finished by the time the events are in a past time-like cone; we don't even necessarily need a timelike source of random bits, as they are always naturally impinging from the rest of the universe.
What am I getting wrong with that model?
[Subtle gods could then leverage chaos to work in ways undetectable by their creations?]
Lagniappe: https://xkcd.com/378/
Lets just say, compressing an obscene tonnage of number theoretical hndwav’ry folks usually prefer one direction of SR <=> QM.., so whatever is “extra” in GR maps to the “extra” bits (sorry) in QFT (that JvN had almost no inkling of, that Feynman had just a wee bit (sorry))
[looking at the arxiv 16xx review again, it does seem that Gisin had the right motivations in 199x, but git mostly distracted (not sure about students).. i’d have thought that “heterodyne detection” wouldve set you off]
SAHD reminds me of http://blog.sigfpe.com/2005/05/dual-photography-part-i.html (in part-ii the experiment was indeed successful, but that seems to have been lost to the mists of the web, at least while wayback is down?)
Edit: riff on your riff, timely reminder (to self) to attend to Thom’s catastrophe theory and its environs
EDIT: also seem to have been plenty of zampolit in the VMF.
Lagniappe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrector#Roman_Antiquity
EDIT2: 林白樂 via PMWL probably liaised with PoWaBu?
EDIT3: AIS wouldn't have had a commissar in his unit in 1945, but he would've had a zampolit, which makes his own behaviour seem even stranger?
renominative only? Zombified PCs overcame (thermidorian/stalinist) reaction? (cf Lannes, reading like a serial founder story, compare Villeneuve, reading like a serial bigcorp CxO)
Yes, AIS was a weirdo?
Thanks for MSN; I wonder why he hasn't been publishing with Springer, where he'd be easier to find?
JUNK makes everything total, so composition just works, and refinement doesn't need to take into account domain; the following:
f \refines g <=> f`x ~ g`x NB. (~) is (<=) for bunches
On the other side, for program correctness, I'd always thought the whole point of Hoare triples was that in {p}f{q};{q}g{r}, {p} is chosen (wp or wlp) explicitly so that never not {q} ... which in turn ensures {r}.
How far is your idea of refinement from some def of “derivative”?
Very far (tho I have some other, derivative-like, concepts, but much fuzzier)...
"Refinement" in this case is a CS term of art, sorry: to say that "f refines g" is to say that f's domain[0] includes g's domain, and each fibre of g^-1 includes the equivalent fibre of f^-1, so anywhere in a computation you had a g, it could safely (although not always lively![1]) be replaced with f. In particular, programs as deterministic implementations refine their indeterministic specifications.
(the best specification[2] is the closest to chaos that one can get that still does the right thing — which I guess loops back to leadership?)
The optimiser's (pedantry: we really should call it an "amelioriser") job is to reverse one of those arrows, so when the programmer writes f, the optimiser tries to discern the comm... sorry, programmer's intent to determine the spec h which coarsens f, and then substitute a g which also refines h: f <- h -> g.
[0] here JUNK simplifies by using an appropriate lattice: as Nuts (the undefined/unconstrained value) includes (~ = is included by) all defined values, we don't need to speak separately of domains: f \refines g <=> f`x ~ g`x
[1] there is a term of art from our army which refers to the art of making oneself scarce when tasks are being handed out; similarly, in CS there is a distinction between "safety" and "liveness": nothing is always a safe, albeit unproductive, thing to do.
[2] on the dual end of the lattice, in general there will be many programs in the neighbourhood of the maximally determinate that still makes progress. This is why, if we have a "science" at the spec end, when it comes to imps we instead have an "art" of hacking or a "discipline" of engineering.
Im still confused.. didnt msn publish w springer?
[1] in Deckung gehen?
[1] not exactly, but defo in that direction!