bitdizzy

This is really cool! Of all the ways to get numerical and statistical capabilities into Haskell this seems to be the right balance of pragmatic and ambitious.

I wonder if there any surprising linker optimizations that happen because the R interpreter is in the same binary as the Haskell.

Also the body text font sucks.

White supremacists are famous for having incoherent ideologies and engaging dishonestly, yes. I am confident in saying that.

This is white supremacist drivel.

If your conclusion from examining the path-dependency of history is that good scientists are white male non-catholics with a troubled past, you're not doing scholarship. You're pushing numbers around.

The other articles on this site are even more egregious.

Most modern mathematicians don't work with foundations but it was a hot topic at the beginning of the 20th century. Most mathematicians today wouldn't even be able to tell you when they are using the axiom of replacement, an important but technical piece of ZFC. Before the work on foundations mathematicians frequently relied on intuition to explain their ideas. The point of mathematical precision is to be able to transmit mathematical ideas with fidelity to other mathematicians; common intuitions are important for that even today.

However, it is frequently the case that mathematical intuition breaks down and paradoxical ideas need to be reckoned with. One historical example is Weierstrass's "monster": a function that is everywhere continuous but nowhere differentiable. The intuition at the time was that a continuous function could only fail to be smooth at a set of isolated points, a very tame set. It is no coincidence that he came up with this example in a period when his school was trying to recast calculus on more rigorous footing.

As for the motivation for founding mathematics on formal systems, it's because set theory is so useful for writing down mathematical ideas but naive set theory is plagued with contraditions, such Russel's paradox. Common language, too, is afflicted with contradictions such as Richard's paradox. The question was how to separate the wheat from the chaff so one does good mathematics and not nonsense. Influential mathematicians like Hilbert set out programs to establish set theory and arithmetic on a sound footing so that its use would not be held suspect. This required a more thorough mathematical development of logic as started by Boole, Frege, and others (my recollection of the precise history of these ideas is vague at this point).

So concurrently we saw the mathematization of logic, arithmetic, and language and the establishment of a reasonable set theory that did not give rise to antinomies. None of the answers were entirely satisfactory but they were good enough that common mathematical activity could continue without too much doubt. When there are questions of precision, one tries to fall back on the informal mathematical language of sets which is commonly presumed to be formalizable in systems such as ZFC.

A lot of development since then in formal mathematical systems has to do with the study of computation and the mechanization of mathematical reasoning.

"... for the purposes of formalizing mathematical reasoning?"

I know vaguely from a few friends that there is some cross pollination between algebraic geometry and PDE's but both fields are so huge that this doesn't characterize either field. I think the gist of it is that the moduli space of PDE solutions are frequently interesting as varieties.

There's this rare unclosed survey-like mathoverflow question that highlights some of these points: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/66046/which-nonlinear-pde...

Which formal logic do you suggest to replace it?

No but anyone can make an argument. There are not enough resources to evaluate every argument or position put forward by every random crackpot. That is why credibility is a thing. If we could all spend as much time as necessary to evaluate every position, however specious, then we wouldn't need credibility.

But when visibility can be bought by moneyed interests, then public discourse starts to break down. Here is where credibility needs to be established to sieve out self-interested propaganda.

I'm currently reading The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. It's quite an anachronistic book, has an obvious slant from the author's bias, and is outdated in a few parts compared to the modern views of the fall of Rome (according to my historian pal), but it's a delightful read on a literary level. That's not even to mention the casual prejudice and racism; the author really hates the Ottoman empire for obvious reasons and ranks peoples of his time on how barbarous they are.

It's an absolutely massive work that even so scarcely indicates the complexity of Rome's decline. I hope to branch out and read some more modern takes afterwards. One interesting observation of the varied causes attributed is that they all exist in some form or another today, in the most powerful nations of the world, and they could come to a critical point once more, and it's not clear where that would take us.

Goodness! Someone else who remembers LUE. It's refreshing that someone else has noticed the repetitive cycle of the Internet. There were white supremacists taking advantage of usenet from the beginning. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" is useless pablum to someone like me who has seen the same people acting in bad faith pushing the most pernicious ideas on each communication platform that comes and goes for decades.

Oh, my mistake. I'll do better next time.

I found Wikipedia's source on the matter. It is here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0003379620020272...

"With the new meaning of science the need to designate a man of science became more pressing. Hitherto philosopher had served, but, as I have said, philosophy had narrowed in meaning to exclude natural philosophy, except in the minds and mouths of an older generation. An English man of science who called himself a philosopher now did so rather self-consciously, or hastened to qualify the name with the adjectives ' experimental ' or ' natural. ' The French word philosophe was immedi- ately brought to mind, and those designated by that word were not men of science, besides having been notorious atheists. The name scientist was first propounded in the Quarterly Review for March, 1834. The anonymous reviewer made the suggestion, too jocularly, however, to be taken entirely in earnest, in the course of a review of Mrs Somerville's book On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences. From Todhunter's biography 9 we learn that the reviewer was William Whewell, F.R.S."

I cannot yet find a copy of the original review and am curious to find it. In any case I think you're a little weird for turning this into a soapbox for your views on a so-called culture war.

Edit:

Here it is: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_uWsJAAAAQAAJ/page/n61/mod...

I invite people to examine the primary source and come to their own conclusions.

Correlation being 0.8 means that R^2 is 0.64. A test that can only explain 64% of the variance in its result based on the fact that I am still me is suspect.

> This places exactly zero constraints on the utility of IQ tests. Instead of asking why group A scores higher than group B, I can simply ask why group B is impaired relative to group A. Apparently that should be enough to convince you of the validity of the comparison.

I said significant impairment. I don't mean significant in the statistical sense but in the sense of "wow that's really noticeable". Basically any test of aptitude can be used to detect lead poisoning, or the impacts of brain tumor removal, for example.

Please answer my request though, in which contexts do you think IQ suffers from denialism?

IQ is somewhat effective as a diagnostic tool for significant impairment and not much else. Your examples of where it is not contentious are exactly cases where you must measure impairments. Do you want to list some example contexts where you witness "flat out denialism"?

In any case there is an important point: The variance of measured IQ for the same individual over time is very high. It's hard to extract a signal for that unless there's a severe effect being measured.

I was actively playing DCSS at that time, beat the game with every race and every class, did 15 rune and all and I don't think it was getting dumbed down. A lot of pointless stuff was removed but the tactical depth of the game was preserved quite well.

Hm, maybe I should boot it up again and see what's been changed.

> they were willingly exporting food for money in lieu of eating...

The "they" who decided to export were not the "they" who starved.

I had to read your post and the GP post multiple times and I'm still confused. It doesn't seem like you're talking at all to what they said but are stating a very well worn argument for free speech, that is, if some speech is to be curtailed, then all speech is under threat of being curtailed.

But the GP was precisely talking about how even though many would say "we have freedom of speech", what that actually means in practice falls far short of the mark. We "have freedom of speech" in the sense that many people hold the ideology. But holding an ideology is very different from having that ideology realized.

It is eugenics once you start digging into it and having a conversation about the etiology of the social problems being discussed. As a former LWer, I regret to inform you that a great deal of utilitarianism on LessWrong is eugenics without explicitly mentioning the belief in an essential origin of human qualities that one wishes to promote or demote. There are many naive members of the community who don't or refuse to see it, and a large contingent of manipulative people who know exactly what they're saying.

> Call them callous, but theirs is a way of being in the world that is no less valid than one that holds every individual's life worthy of special protection from the consequences of their unforced errors, and where these might be attributable to mental illness, there is a rational argument for putting the space and resources consumed by the mentally ill to better use.

You've asserted that this eugenicist viewpoint is valid and is defensible but you don't present such a defense. Would you like to post a defense this position which is by no means obvious?

"A nineteen year-old... has no feel on his pulse for those tragedies of adult life that economists call scarcity and choice."

I think this says a lot about what kind of teenager gets into an economics program, or at least the author's perception of them.

Can you describe some examples of the phenomenon to which you are alluding?

I don't think you're speaking in good faith if you don't think the grandparent is speaking from the point of view of an extremely mainstream belief in the dishonesty of "agenda-driven left-leaning organizations".

Is this the anyonic computing I heard about several years ago or is it another line of quantum computing research also funded by Microsoft?

Mentioned in the PDF I linked to :) And lambda calculus came decades before still.

While Haskell has a lot of influence from ML it is also a descendant of the highly influential line of programming languages designed by David Turner starting with SASL. If Miranda weren't a closed source language it perhaps would be what all of us are talking about now.

Some History of Functional Programming Languages (David Turner) https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dat/tfp12/tfp12.pdf

I enjoyed how scared I felt in Amnesia until the first time I died and reloaded. After that the edge was gone.

Lovely! I think it speaks to the value of an idea that it is developed independently more than once.

It should be noted as it is in the abstract of your first reference that these are elaborations on the core idea of Church encodings (and Boehm-Berarducci encodings).

My favorite solution to the expression problem is the tagless-final style. It can be implemented in both ML-likes and Haskell-likes leveraging either expressive module systems or type class systems to combine the benefits of both shallow and deep embedding of DSL's. It requires one to bend their mind to really understand but once it clicks it is extremely powerful. Perhaps that "click" is the mind snapping once sufficiently bent.

http://okmij.org/ftp/tagless-final/

"The so-called ``tagless-final'' style is a method of embedding domain-specific languages (DSLs) in a typed functional host language such as Haskell, OCaml, Scala or Coq. It is an alternative to the more familiar embedding as a (generalized) algebraic data type. It is centered around interpreters: Evaluator, compiler, partial evaluator, pretty-printer, multi-pass optimizer are all interpreters of DSL expressions. Doing a tagless-final embedding is literally writing a denotational semantics for the DSL -- in a host programming language rather than on paper."

The intervention in the United States was haphazard and underfunded by the government. There was no reason for any business to go bankrupt while a proper lockdown was implemented. Instead there was a spotty, inconsistent response with very little help for people. Like, one 1200 check for people and two loans for businesses?

It was the worst of all worlds and you're blaming it on the wrong people.

Why, the 5th dimension is your imagination of course!