Re:"The Secret Life of Circuits" is here
by analog31 on Saturday September 19, 2026 @12:17PM
(#49767773)
Oddly enough, one of my upper level math textbooks (maybe real analysis, don't remember) said the same thing about the definition of a set, except that "later" meant graduate school.
Re:"The Secret Life of Circuits" is here
by dekhn on Saturday September 19, 2026 @04:39PM
(#49769930)
lcamtuf is one of the smartest people I've ever seen. When you read his work you realize he's only sort of putting about 1% of his intelligence on the page.
Re:"The Secret Life of Circuits" is here
by whatshisface on Saturday September 19, 2026 @08:15PM
(#49771305)
That answer is not representing the last hundred years of progress fairly. You give an answer like that now at least one level deeper. :-)
> Once again, we don’t have a satisfying explanation why. We know that these quantum numbers correspond to standing-wave solutions of a three-dimensional wave function that we pulled out of thin air. We also know that the model works better than any alternatives. But we don’t know what any of it really means — or if it means anything.
It is so refreshing to see this explicated thus; physics textbooks are generally coy about "know this for now, and there will be deeper insights available later" but they typically never level with readers and say "we don't know".