1,146 karma · joined October 20, 2015
On the other hand my intuition is: flipping a coin (generating next digit of a real number between 0 and 1) and then trasforming it to e.g. an exponential random variable should always take you to the point where you can decide about the ordering in countably finite coin toss, with probability one...
data ParaBool = False | True
Then implement your operators. Then everything is what it is defined to be. How can this be worse than sneakingly changing semantics of already defined things?
In a free world it should be legal to sell copper as gold, call the lies truth, and mix newborns in hospital - and people are just stupid if they want laws against these... ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box%E2%80%93Muller_transform
Also wikipedia has an easy to understand summary too, in the two envelope problem article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem#Randomiz...
Here it explains with numbers larger than 0, and uses exponential distribution (even easier to generate from uniform random variable).
If these kinds of low level size optimizations are enabled then both Nim and Rust can be more than 50 times smaller than your D example ;) :
150 byte Nim: https://hookrace.net/blog/nim-binary-size/
151 byte Rust: http://mainisusuallyafunction.blogspot.com/2015/01/151-byte-...
If I sort an array its entropy will be lower - while due to thermodynamics the total entropy of the world will be increased.
So there is the only the high level component I'm interested in: I see less macrostate in a sorted array(one) than in an undordered(n factorial) even if the microstates in the world have increased(I don't care).
Same goes for the article examples, for me subjectively an ice statue can have many different forms (macrostates), if it melts it will have one form (a puddle) - so I see the entropy to decrease - of course the puddle have more microstates than the ice statue - just I do not differentiate between them...
True: in the sbove examples things became more ordered at high level (entropy have decreased), meanwhile physical entropy have increased - but that increase was global and in our local point of interest it is still can be said (according to modern usage) that entropy have decreased!
Of course the total sum have to be positive - that's the basis of how for example the Landauer principle is calculated, wich connects the above high level informational view with physical entropy...
Same split between descriptive/theoretical, and applied science. The first just increase knowledge - pure innocence without side-effects - the second may build bombs.
(But in the end both functional programs, and pure knowledge made with the intention to go through some interpreter with side-effects (computer/human) anyway...)
( O(N^(1/2)), O(N^0.5), O(sqrt(N)), O(N¹ᐟ²), O(√N̅) would have been better... )
"For we may distinguish two main types of government. The first type consists of governments of which we can get rid without bloodshed — for example, by way of general elections; that is to say, the social institutions provide means by which the rulers may be dismissed by the ruled, and the social traditions- ensure that these i nstitutions will not easily be destroyed by those who are in power. The second type consists of governments which the ruled cannot get rid of except by way of a successful revolution — that is to say, in most cases, not at all" ... "the criterion of a democracy is this: In a democracy, the rulers — that is to say, the government — can be dismissed by the ruled without bloodshed Thus if the men in power do not safeguard those institutions which secure to the minority the possibility of working for a peaceful change, then their rule is a tyranny. We need only distinguish between two forms of government, viz. such as possess institutions of this kind, and all others"
https://archive.org/stream/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPopper...
it would be much cheaper salary wise - also they could gather in a small meeting room somewhere ;) And those countries would stay as much "democratic" as now, just without the Potemkin village of the parliament...
[1] edit: by "party" I mean not the representatives, or all the party as a whole, but the leader of the party / or a smallish leading group
excercise - and for me it was more anxiety+smoking but less anxiety led to less drinking too(which I did not recognize as a problem at the time)
I consciously used it as a replacement: when I was stressed and need of a cigarette, I told myself that I actually feel the miss of a good run - and for me running really helped somewhat, so it was enough to start a positive feedback loop. It is also good that both drinking and smoking makes excercising harder, which I tried to (and many times could) use as a fact against them ("if i now drink i wont be able to wake up early enough to go for a run", "if i smoke it will much harder to breath")
And another internet wisdom cliché ;) regarding anxiety: stop drinking coffee (tea...)...
"The overall Kolmogorov complexity of a string is thus defined as K(x)=|p| where p is the shortest program string for language L such that L(p)=x and we consider all programming languages."
This is false. No one considers "all programming language", we consider one fixed language (by fixed you can/should mean: independently of the input, or in a different way: you define the language for all possible inputs).
(But it can be ANY universal language chosen from all languages (due to the provably constant overhead) - that's true, but according what follows in your link, your definition not meant it this way.)
https://corecursive.com/021-gods-programming-language-with-p...
Unfortunately all our word definitions seems shaky, if we want to describe something that is the base requirement of those very definitions.
Maybe the best we can do is to deconstruct the above using more simple or base terms, but the meaning of those terms maybe also depends on the content of experience not the mere fact of experience:
I experience thought -> experience of thoughts exists -> experience exists -> something exists
So upon experiencing thought you may conclude that "something exists", or "there IS something"...
On the other hand: mpg123 on Linux played the same files with less than 50% cpu load! ;)
Even if you not thinking about "exotic"(at least for westerners) scales, but simple&clear western accords like just intonation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation#Singing_and_sc...
edit - music recommendation:
I've met the concept of argument map for the first time, and had to google it to gain some understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map
Thats a safe split: ideologies do not have (human) rights anyway...
So e.g. you can freely say that the Bible is stupid but can't say the same thing about its believers.
Imagine you are Einstein, and you have derived relativity from a few axiom, if you are still interested in experimental verification of your theory then you are an empiricist. If you say: I know for sure I'm right no need for experiments at all - you are a rationalist.
Modern science is mostly empiricist, maybe hardcore austrian economists are rationalists (for them economy is derived from praxeology, experimental verification is not possible and not needed)
This can have an advantage: one can stuff much more code (and functionality) in a very memory limited system (e.g. smart cards), especially with WORDS compression:
"Huffman threaded code is one of the most compact representations known for a computer program"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threaded_code#Huffman_threadin...
They could have even take inspiration, imagine: typed, functional, monadic init files - "systemd: avoid success at all costs" :)
1. Imagine a finite formal system which universally can identify if an input is regular (compressible) or random (not compressible) / So we are using the Kolmogorov-complexity definition of randomness here...
2. Assume the above formal system can be described using L bits (e.g. it is an L bit long program)
3. Lets take the first (e.g. smallest in numerical ordering) 2×L (or 10×L, 100×L, ... take it as large you want) long bit string that the program classifies as random bit string
4. "3." is a definition of a 2×L long string in L bits (the formal system itself) + constant
5. The 2×L long string is therefore compressibe so it is not random - but our original algorithm is misclassify it as random (it is in its definition) - so the algorithm is not universal...
Ok, I see. But it is not true for a large(not english speeking) part of the world. It is like calling your "pineapple" software Ananas[1], you just romanticize it in a small region while interfere with traditional word usage in the other part. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/2pp0s6/pineapple_p...
You mean romanize? And not just on the surface (latin alphabet), but even using the actual word from latin (which is already romanized greek I guess) and of course all the related living languages...
edit: I always felt strange naming a software exactly the same name (in many language) as the field it operates in. Like naming a music creation software Music, or a biology related software Biology, etc. It is like equates the software with the whole field, suggesting that there is no difference between the software and its disclipine. It is a marketing trick that have a bit of bragging side, but of course it is common pattern, e.g: https://www.amazon.co.uk/I-Am-Football-Zlatan-Ibrahimovic/dp...
(I wrote universal computation - to mske a distinction to common physical processes like what forks usually do - we may obviously say that a glass of water computes in a second where water molecules of that water will be in a second, but that is too direct and missing the abstraction level that my mind has (sensing and modelling my environment) or a universal turing machine has (manipulating symbols which may stand for(modell) something)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_wrestling
"The matches have predetermined outcomes[11] to heighten entertainment value[12] and all combative maneuvers are executed with the full cooperation of those involved...These facts were once kept highly secret but are now a widely accepted open secret. To promote and sustain the willing suspension of disbelief by maintaining an aura of verisimilitude, the performing company avoids discussing the true nature of the performance in official media"
And these are adults.
These girls may continue their hobbies in adulthood too (like most people keep playing the games they like at older age...)