cdog46

no

Thank god-you are one of the rare individuals who can use the English language to explain a complex idea. The hideous bias I have encountered in the "hi tech" world is because my mind works like yours and I have always found your talent to be rare gem. Why anyone would think the reduction of complexity into simple terms means putting it into "12 year old" terms is beyond me. So I remain an exile.

i have an advanced graduate degree & am not 12 years old. The guy on reddit with his explanation was good reading. Now-fr the interesting part-it's people who can understand the theorem AND explain it to a third party are the really RARE people. Putting complexity into simple terms is what takes the real talent. Amen

Dwollar

check it out

That article, as written in Vanity Fair, is so poorly written. Paragraph one is evidence enough. More indefinite modifiers so that you don't know who is who. Also I don't understand why answer 1 is the correct answer regarding Linda. There is simply not enough information given to determine which answer is true.

FORTH programming language, like C, might be a good choice. The downside is that not many programmers use this language. And that's unfortunate.

So long as people continue to confuse explanation with description-we'll have confusion. Math is description; science is description with comparison and the contrasting of said description(s). Then what is explanation? I have no clue but to say it is part of consciousness, and,in the case of homo sapiens, partial consciousness. To say that us(humans) with our four dimensional rules of calculation & perception can "know" the how of everything is no more proposterious than to believe the earth is flat. Put another way-scientists who too often reject a new theory put forth that challenges current theories or assumptions-it reminds me of religious zealots defending any challenge to their dogma