nyc111

Mathematics is built on definitions. There are definitions on the foundations of mathematics. Axioms are definitions that are kept constant by consensus.

Euclid starts with definitions. If you don't like Euclid's definitions you make your own definitions. You create your own geometry etc.

The title is misleading click batey but very interesting video about knot theory.

From the video it looks like mathematical knots might not have the property actually of being real knots that you can tie. Is this true? Does anyone know?

I'm not talking about "all units". All purely mathematical numbers are multiples of 1. 1+1, 1+1+1 and so on. So mathematical numbers heve 1 as unit.

This is what I mean:

    1, 1+1, 1+1+1, 1+1+1+1, 1+1+1+1+1, 1+1+1+1+1+1, 1+1+1+1+1+1+, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1, and so on...

It seems to me that purely mathematical numbers also have units. Their unit is unity.

"Dimorphos' orbit continuously slowed after impact... which is unusual and unexpected."

If the orbit's radius got bigger after the impact, according to Kepler's rule, it's period would increase. If this is the case, this is not unexpected behavior.

You can prepare your audience for a surprise. You need to draw a surprising result from your previous statements. I guess this could be called a rhetorical surprise.

This seems like the same thing as Orwellian doubletalk with a fancy name. What am I missing? It's a play on the definitions of words.

"Zevin, who lives in Los Angeles with Canosa and their dogs, Frank, a pug mix, and Leia, a dachshund mix, is writing the screenplay for “Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow,” a project that presents new narrative challenges."

Is this level of detail about her dogs necessary? Is this a journalistic thing?

«Praised be the daring of all bold dreamers!»

To be compared with Wolfram's history of second law of thermodynamics https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/a-50-year-quest-...

Were there any other observations of this particle after its discovery, do you know? Is it rare, or is it commonplace?

Perry E. Metzger: "Most are unaware of how much of space technology was theoretically anticipated and worked out by a handful of people decades before anyone actually tried to achieve orbit. Tsiolkovsky’s achievements, for example, are astounding and worth reading about." https://twitter.com/perrymetzger/status/1627465913237635074?...

"The Miletus of 2,600 years ago was a time and place in which the ability to read and write moved beyond a limited circle of elite scribes."

Interesting. Any time access to knowledge becomes cheaper a revolution occurs. Or anytime a monopoly on knowledge disappears. I guess the next revolution occurred with the printing press. And the last, with the internet. Did I miss any other?

"To us today [the caloric theory] might seem hacky and implausible (perhaps a little like dark matter, cosmological inflation, etc.)..."

Youtube: https://youtu.be/PlytMrKfOFA

Are there measurements of pi calculated by meausuring diameter and circumference? How many digits can that pi have?

No. I'm just curious. Most of their content is paywalled so I was wondering if in scientific matters they were more authoritative than Wikipedia.

"I never correct anything and I never go back to what I have written, except to the foot of the last page to see where I have got to."

I think this is tough to do, but a good idea.

And everyone says how important is the routine.

>> It’s important to point out, though, that the experiment comes with all kinds of caveats. The wormholes the group were simulating, and indeed, even the holographic principle on which they’re based, exist in a hypothetical kind of universe that operates very differently from our own. In addition, their experiments assumed only two dimensions: one spatial dimension and the dimension of time.

>> “The relationship between quantum entanglement, spacetime, and quantum gravity is one of the most important questions in fundamental physics and an active area of theoretical research,” Spiropulu said.

Experiment is done in two dimensions but the physicists describe an experiment which is valid in “spacetime" which must have 4 dimensions.

It looks like there is a disconnect between theory and the experiment.

AdS == Anti de Sitter space == A universe with nothing in it.

These physicists assume a universe with nothing in it, then populate it with physicists and quantum computers and wormholes.

This is like claiming to have the most beatiful differential equations that explain perfectly the weather on earth. You say "ok, let's test these beautiful equations." But it turns out that the equations so beautiful to look at have no perfect solutions. So you need to make absurdly symmetrical assumptions to arrive at a usable solution, like assuming no atmosphere. Then, with no atmosphere your equations explains the earth's atmosphere perfectly well. With beautiful mathematical gimmicks, of course. With an assumption of a universe with nothing in it your equations explain everything in that universe with nothing in it.

Physics is neo-scholasticism powered by the marketing skills of the practitioners. This episode about wormholes proves the corruption of academic physics.

The concept of wormholes, it appears to me, is a direct product of the concept of spacetime. Not space. Not time. But a different mathematical entity called spacetime.

But when I read the article I see that the actual experiment is done in space not in a spacetime. Spacetime enters only in theoretical discussions. I copied the sentences where the word "space" occurs. The first sentence is theoretical explanation of wormhole with the clieche of "fabric of spacetime" as if spacetime has a fabric.

    Wormholes — wrinkles in the fabric of _spacetime_ that connect two disparate locations

    What’s the maximum amount of information that can fit in a single region of _space_?

    the description of a volume of _space_ with gravity acting in it can be thought of as encoded on the boundary enclosing the volume: every object inside the _space_ has a corresponding description on the boundary and vice versa

   to connect objects in _space_

What is the title reference to? Raymond Chandler has a novel with that title but it was published 4 years after the New Yorker article. https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/chandlerr-farewellmylovely/chand...

“Slide 17: Galilean equation d=t^2”

I liked this article. But Slide 17 and 18 suggests that Galileo used equations. But this is not the case. I looked at the Discorsi again and there isn’t one single equation in it. Galileo works with geometry and proportions.

So, when Galileo published his book, “barely 50 years after the introduction of algebraic notation by Vieta” algebra was NOT the “universal language of science.” Anyway, this is a nitpick, it does not influence his argument.

Also, d=t^2 is NOT "Galielean equation", he means proportionality. d is proportional to t^2, but in equation form it is written as, d=1/2at2.

This particular parasite has the effect described in the article. But our gut is full of other species of so-called "parasites" who live in harmony with the host. Human body is a symbiotic organism. So, if this parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, is capable of altering or defining the behavior of the host, can we generalize this observation and say that human behavior is defined by parasites and symbiotic organisms living in the gut?

I wonder if physicists are confusing themselves by corrupting well-defined English words like particle and spin and turning them into undefined physics jargon. Quantum particles are not spinning because in physics a particle does not mean a particle, it can mean a wave, or a statistical bump in data or many other things. Well written article.

I wonder if they discussed the problem with the shephard of the flock they studied. His insights may be be relevant. I think in some herds there is an alpha male that has a bell on his neck and sheep follow him.

The title ought to be “The map of the _observable_ universe”. We don’t know the universe as a whole because as stated in the article no light comes to us from beyond the observable universe.

Ok. But I still don't get it. I wrote, "The paper in fact is not the song. It becomes a song when it is sang. When it is given voice. In fact it is hard to say what the song is. You can play it with different instruments. You can play it in its recorded form on various media. All these will sound different. I was thinking "reality" is like this too. So I don't think the sign can make the airport."

How is this related to a meme?