bsedlm

can anybody tell me what's f in this scenario?

dy/dt = dx/dt + Ax

is it the case that y = f(x,t)?

thanks

are you talking about hallucinogenic substances?

I think there's a larger point around the general notion of "spread of competency".

the competency is not allowed to spread. there's a thick shroud of secrecy around how all this sophisticated technology comes about.

This is also why semiconductors are so difficult.

Back in the early 20th century the nuclear stuff was secret so the nazis and then the russians would not get it.

Now semiconductors are also closely related to national security stuff (china and taiwan). I find it quite suggestive that most of the tech used to make the semiconductors is owned european companies.

Finally, I have a sensation that in the 18-19th century it was the chemical sciences that were similarly shrouded in secrecy of this sort.

There was a topic here on HN the other day about how there's so little popularization of chemistry... IMO, this is why, the legacy of secrecy so to guarantee competitive industrial advantages still casts its shadow.

that's the same thing as asking people in europe to please do whatever they can to influence NATO's behavior...

or asking somebody in Colombia to please help stop all that cocaine (or dunno)

there's something deeply flawed in the assumptions of how the world works when pleading to a random person in a country to please please influence the actions of the international institutions controlling the country.

for that matter, unconditional anything is dangerous

unconditional rationalism seem to lead to a meaningless life (i.e. the shitty kind of nihilism)

unconditionally doing something because "rationality" demands it strikes me as mental gymnastics to let some symbolic-computable method dictate what we do... to follow this unconditionally is just as dumb as acting only on one's emotions

we have (are able to do) both; so let's use both.

so you want bitcoin as non-fungible cash?

isn't that a counter to the whole point of a cash-currency?

I don't wanna be opted-in by default into any notification generated by any automated process.

only when a fellow human clicks (i.e. directly triggers) one action (intended to call my attention) should I be interrupted with a full notification by default.

all notifications generated in bulk, by an automated script/bot, or as a side-effect of a human action need to be explicitly activated by me before they can interrupt me.

why assume it's not intelligent?

I think whether or not it's intelligent depends their actual goal

familiarity is not the same thing as simplicity

if the entirety of your being is the property of your employeer during "clock time" that don't seem like employemnt to me

so the rights and freedoms are only protecting citizens from government oppression... if a private company does it, then it's fine cuz corporations are also free people.

they're free people who somehow are getting to oppress and censor individual humans (otherwise the corporation is who is being oppressed), but let's pretend that we can punish them by "taking our dollars elsewhere" such that it's our own fault

IMO, tracing this towards the root, I find along the way the grand system of royalties and other kinds of rent schemes. Nobody cares cuz we prefer the promise (for the majority is a promise) that we can come up with something great to make it BIG and then get to live from rent or other kinds of royalty payments

it's supposed to be equal before the law... which it's not real in practice anywhere either. Usually one's networth changes the law, at least in Europe they're upfront about it.

if all news are breaking news, then there are no breaking news

I'd argue that while the current generation of nobles may in fact have done nothing much to earn them, they do have ancestors that fought bitterly, and in some cases quite sleazily, to earn and keep their privilege.

the idea that "all men are equal" is not really true in Europe. And it's only supposedly true in America

I want to make a computer runtime which doesn't execute the program but instead allows for a programmer to understand what's going on.

a metacomputer of sorts; maybe epicomputer would be a better name?

I disagree, I think even in this scenario the whole thing worked as intended.

It's just rare for people to be this persistent.

I'm supsect that when companies deal with other companies this kind of thing (this amount of persistence) is the norm; it's just rare when individual persons deal with companies.

> I was very impressed that this company so effectively neutered all staff that had any contact with customers.

I'm fascinated by the separation of them who do something (the company's employees), them who run it (i.e. who tell said employees how to work), AND them who actually own the company.

It's been mind-blowing to me how for all large-enough companies, the people who own it have no say at all in how it's run. and the people who run it (the managers or "executives"/bureaucrats who curiously do not actually peform the productivity-creating labor) cannot be really held liable for what the company does for it's only their job, the owners are liable, but they have no say (nor interest really) in how it's run, they just want them dividends/rent.

in this scenario, the giant multinational corporations are essentially skynet; i.e. rogue, unaccountable/never liable group of autonomous entities made mostly out of money.

Sometimes I like to imagine that on some level of companies who own other companies, there already exist groups of companies that own each other, such that if you followed the trail of ownership you'd go around a cycle.

> For me, it only developed as a coping mechanism because I was unable to accept the world from a nonspiritual point of view.

Yeah, I found that after some point, after I realized that a strict linguistic (formal) outlook was rigid and unflexible and started to relax about it, that I started to reach into a wider pool of concepts to allow me to make sense of the world.

Also accepting that some beliefs which are not testable by science can still be judged in terms of what do they do for me; do they make me feel good? or bad? do they allow me to engage in actions with postivie outcomes? and so on...

but whereas once upon a time one could find very good quality oil very easily. uranium has always had to be processed a lot to reach usable form.

also, making oil into usable gas also yields (or used to yield?) lot's of very useful resources used for plastic and lubricants and so on.

in a collective way

i.e. it's 'easy' for a individual (even a smallish similar group). But in society-scale? difficult.

my mileage varies...

but when ddg's results are useless, it's possible to add !g in any part of the query and it'll redirect (which for some reason forces me to refresh everyonce in a while before google's results appear)

to be fair, the paper has a funny tone, like an elaborate joke would have... I feel like he may deliver a punch-line at any point before I finish reading the paper and then I'd have to choose whether to burst out laughing or not

having thought about this some more, I guess that no, the more fundamental notion should be sets.

may I recommend this links to read up on the precise formal definition of ‘type’

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/type-theory/

Simple Type Theory https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/type-theory-church/

This seems to be what's going on:

Sets -[construct-into]-> Relations -[construct-into]-> Functions

The 'destructive' definitions are a bit less common

> the definitions of sets from functions and from relations are "destructive".

so a destructive definition of a set:

- start with a relation: define unary relations... I can see how this could be 'destructive'; it has a feel like an 'overkill' (or a 'waste') to use relations and then use only half of what they provide to regard them as sets

- start with a function: to define a relation use a singleton co-domain (this is really very similar to characteristic functions. This has been quite tricky for me to wrap my head around: how in logic there's a tacit assumption of 'truth' in the sense that a predicate defines a set and if this set is empty then the predicate is 'false'. I'm studying this from the lens of modal logic and formal semantics)

to define a relation use a power set.

I think all this is still relying on sets, because a co-domain is a set, as well as a power set.

> Since I can't think of any "constructive" definition of sets from functions or relations, while I can think of "constructive" definitions in the opposite direction, I would say sets are more fundamental than functions and relations

As I understand this, the sets really are more fundamental because in the end they bring to the system (for the lack of a better word) the capability to identify things, and when dealing with functions, which come with variables, the concept of a set allows for identifying the same variables in the function's call (parametric denotation?) and the functions actual body (its computable definition)

What I'm trying to say, is why it may well be the case that sets really are more fundamental than functions.

is category theory mathematics or computer science?

(why not both?)

relations are also defined in terms of sets: As a sets of pairs, e.g. an element of a set like {x ,{x,y}} is just the pair (x,y), a set of such pairs IS a relation.

moreover, in terms of sets functions are a relation with some restrictions:

- That they are binary relations

- The "functional-requirement" (as I call it) refers to the difference between a relation and a function. for every x, f(x) = (only one thing); e.g. a relation can have pairs (x,a) and (x,b) but no function can do this.

As far as I've understood, this gets really "fun" when characteristic-functions enter the scene... With these boolean-valued functions it's possible to define a set.

I think it's time to elevate the function into the same status as the number.

A number is ultimately founded on sets. A number is a most basic way to structure sets. Every number can be made out of pure sets (and later on, from tuples of sets-as-numbers)

At the moment, functions are also founded in terms of sets. But I think that mathematics can be constructed based on functions instead of sets. As far as I understand, this can be done using simple type theory; but I still have some studying to do about STT.

In any case, my point is that most mathematics since around the 18th century are not really working with numbers, but with functions as if they were numbers.

I really dislike this form of content.

In this comment, I will tell you about this somewhat new way to write content on the internet.

But first, I must explain to you what is the internet.

The internet is a network of many computers in which anybody can write what they think and publish for anybody to see.

On the interent people find stuff with search engines such as google.

Eventually, marketers came up with SEO. Click here to find out about SEO.

With SEO people started to game google to get more people to read their content. Those poeple write like this. I'm imitating their way of writing because it is less annoying to me when I also write this way.

Should you write in this way too?

Studies show that wiriting like this lets you place more ads in your website.

But what about readability?

etc...

I have my suspicions that prior American governments intended (with full knowledge) for the cartels to get more powerful (by means of increasing corruption and letting only those kinds of crime-willing people to service the outlawed black markets)

I recall reading about an economist who based on studying the failure of the prohibition, tried to warn about the futility of 'war on drugs'; from this I thought that if some economist knew it'd fail, so could the government have known....