hyperthesis

A parallel processor is you!

There'a a story that when someone wrote up a famous mathematician's work (Euler?), he found many errors, some quite serious. But all the theorems were true anyway.

Sounds like Tao's third stage, of informed intuition.

Consider whaling, by killer apes.

This beats TFA. Interesting relation between cumulativeness and distribution ("Yule process"). But how does this explain variation is how quickly children pick up maths - would you argue it's due to prior exposure e.g. parental tutoring?

Any comments on the "10x programmer"?

Being more precise: I like Spivak not defining addition, multiplication or number. I just want the other steps explicit, like equality transitivity, enough to implement it (for a computer without "mathematical maturity".)

I feel I already know what's needed - but I didn't catch the 0.a=0 omission at first, and there's surely others I'm still missing... Part of the problem is I have too much implicit knowledge.

Thanks, I'll take a look at those late chapters.

The algebra is my main interest, that happens to be in a calculus text.

0a = 0 is proven later in ch 1, it's just the ordering.

By "something I could code", I mean implementimg these properties (more like writing a proof assistant).

TBF Binet's formula is astonishing

Knuthing it.

This is like when Joel said git stores diffs.

Read of a study years ago that had postmenopausal wpmen do weight training - giving a dramatic 40% increase in bone density in 6 weeks IIRC the details.

It's not that frail people need to be inactive, but that inactivity causes frailty.

Can't read without an account.

Also "working memory" is short-term storage, like registers, the details of what you're thinking about right now. Not memory of past events, like your wedding day.

"Giving the world a solution" vs. "showing the world how flawlessly smart they are" reminds me of being "visited" by a genius (muse, inspiration). You now have the gift to share, but it doesn't show you're a genius.

The climate change created land bridges. https://xkcd.com/552

Though famous as the first lunar lander game, the impressive part was the specific numerical techniques used.

Also the high-quality amateur scientist webpages. e.g. measurements on radiation heat loss to the sky when camping.

OTOH... we now have sci-hub.se with high-quality professional scientist papers.

Don't they (traditionally) also have a much higher meat intake than average, which supplies vitamin D?

I was curious: they all have two-syllable names except for Doc (leader).

Engineering often precedes Science. It's just more data.

Complexity signals innovation: an invention that is merely a "workshop improvement" won't get patented. Complexity signals non-obviousness.

Too easy -> easily copied -> and no long-term competitive advantgage. Complexity signals hard.

"There's no bragging rights to your software, because it's too simple to use", a developer criticized my product. This reduced its viral spread, though managers liked it.

The solution to a problem can be simple.

But now we want other things. e.g. car=transport, then: speed, efficiency, style, non-polluting, safety, price, a/c, touchscreens, self-driving etc.

The boundless complexity of human desire.

oblig. perverse incentive https://www.folklore.org/Negative_2000_Lines_Of_Code.html

"[A]ll the low hanging fruit have been plucked" from these trees.

In a complex, highly multi-dimensional space, yes, there's always a hill to incrementally climb. There are other hills.

Incrementalism gets you necessary data; but not necessarily insight.

Can anyone give a sense of how much fitter 3.5 mL/kg/min is, in practical terms? e.g. distance cycled/how out of breath?

> For every 1-MET (3.5 mL/kg/min) higher level of CRF, we identified substantial reductions in the risk of all-cause, CVD and cancer mortality. We also identified significant reductions in the risk of incident hypertension, heart failure, stroke, atrial fibrillation and type 2 diabetes per higher MET.

> For most, a 1-MET higher level of CRF is attainable through a regular aerobic exercise programme. For example, in a large population-based observational study of over 90 000 participants, nearly 30% were able to increase their CRF by 1-MET (median follow-up was 6.3 years) without intervention.

There's still real-time ray-tracing.

Cosmetic physics can eat up more, but as a gameplay mechanic, user interaction with realistic physics are too unpredictable (beyond a gimmick). Of course, we could then get actual computer sports.

It will eventually become as chess is now: AI will check and evaluate human translation to and from English.

There's an automatic conformity within us, which is useful for communication, learning, trade, custom and law. e.g. It's helpful that we try to use the same words for the same things.

But we can't think outside our frameworks with this conformity engaged. Hence, the need for solitude.

I think the greater problem of a "person on business from Porlock" (https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_on_business_from_Porlock) was not the interruption itself, but that it engaged Coleridge automatic conformity... and so, without moorings, his imagined unreality drifted away like a dream on waking.

I must add that this is a higher human intellectual need - but we are also gregarious by deep mammalian nature, and if isolated, will invent and converse with imaged persons.