As I found out recently, there's a lighter option: model checkers like Spin. You describe your synchronization logic in a small modeling language (Promela), and Spin tries every possible interleaving of that model.
799 karma · joined May 6, 2023
you can roughly draw the object from memory
you can name its main parts
you can name its main colors
you can describe its spatial orientation
The image shouldn't be as clear as a hallucination, and it should be a memory of a specific object, not a generic one. Meeting these criteria is already enough to link another image to it, for example by piercing it with another object, though there's also the question of imagining it at a large enough size.
Aphants, do these hold for you? Take Doge, the popular meme dog: not a generic Shiba Inu, but that exact picture. Could you sketch it, name its parts and colors, and say which way it's facing? And could you imagine, say, a pencil piercing it?
In education, understanding is often best demonstrated not by restating text, but by presenting the same data in another representation and establishing the right analogies and isomorphisms, as in Explorable Explanations. [1]
They’re quite open about Prism being built on top of Crixet.
On the other hand, Overleaf appears to be open source and at least partially self-hostable, so it’s possible some of these ideas or features will be adopted there over time. Alternatively, someone might eventually manage to move a more complete LaTeX toolchain into WASM.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Crixet/comments/1ptj9k9/comment/nvh...
https://github.com/marler8997/zigx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPWFLkHRIAQ
Compared to libX11, it avoids dynamic dependencies, uses less memory, and provides better error messages.
But maybe someone knows a more general or robust solution - or a better way to achieve this? In the future, I’d like to be able, for example, to find the intersection between two Venn diagrams of three sets each etc.
Like, using something like SageMath for algebraic structures, a prover like Lean to verify properties — to get a feel for how things actually fit together.
There's something cool about trying to reimplement known standards just to understand them better (with the usual "don’t roll your own crypto" warning, of course). By the way, it would be nice to have a kind of sandbox for the more formal path to explore how to build my own SP-network, prove that the Decisional Diffie-Hellman assumption holds or something.
I've seen cryptopals and cryptohack.
That is, it may be less formal at the beginning, but then a craftsman may be found who will do everything quite strictly.
Nevertheless, now this author is developing the theory of syllogistics and there are quite practical results, for example, that the logic textbooks for lawyers can be translated into boolean algebra and made more precise.
There is an development of this idea from some author which leads to something like https://imgur.com/a/AmF7AJe and currently the author tries to find the connection between syllogistics, Boolean algebra, Euler-Venn diagrams, and more. You can take a look at https://www.youtube.com/@Syllogist/videos Many of the recent videos have English subtitles It's hard to describe the whole idea at once, but maybe someone will have the courage to learn something from it.
Shouldn't you still have some sort of idea of the audience you're writing for? And for example, I am more accustomed to seeing myself in different spheres of life, where I behave differently, is it possible to combine all of this?
For example, there is the ziggy-pydust library to write native modules for Python in Zig, and it certainly looks prettier than the usual Python.h import. Still, there is also .ffi to address functions directly that are not yet implemented but are available in Python.h.
If such an option is not available, one often wants to replace such a library and prefer the original one.
However, even this is in a way a wrapper (a native module), and sometimes it is better to use ctypes directly, for example, for the sake of speed of development.
20240513131516 posted a new comment here
Has anyone tried something similar or maybe there's some common name for it?
https://mnemotexnika.narod.ru/izv_mn_02.htm (russian)
Regarding modern requirements for mnemonists, it's seen that one needs, for example, to be able to:
1) Memorize one hundred two-digit numbers in 10 minutes.
2) After a month and a half of the course, retain a database consisting of https://web.archive.org/web/20220331232601/https://www.mnemo... with the ability to recall the information both sequentially and by number, and in context.
I believe there are tens of thousands of people worldwide who have been trained in this manner, and various individual techniques are widely adopted by people.
I've tried learning it myself and I'm convinced that it works, but somehow I keep postponing it. For dissemination, it might be worth paying attention to individual techniques for memorizing formulas or other material to write an article or something similar. Without more detailed personal experience (when I would have such a database in my head), I'm afraid it might come across as mere advertising.
It's astonishing how much can be accomplished with just a bit of "rotating a cow in the mind."
On a related note, I can recall a quick visual counting system where the author attempted to utilize the dialing matrix in a cell phone. The author argues that no genius is needed; there are patterns. One can search for "Творогов В.Б. Наглядная арифметика и технология быстрого счета" for more information.
There's more, but it might already be a bit off-topic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cQIbZa7P80 Computer-Assisted Instruction
http://dmentrard.free.fr/GEOGEBRA/Maths/export4.25/golf.html some people manage to create some applets in geogebra
https://xenaproject.wordpress.com/2022/07/29/teaching-formal... a way to teach theorem proving
maybe I'll remember something else and add it here