HN user

jpt4

316 karma

jpt4 at the Swiss, physics themed secure e-mail service.

Posts3
Comments179
View on HN
Modular Manifolds 10 months ago

\> statistical learning theory does not adequately model the macro-behavior of very large models.

Might you please elaborate on this? I recognize that "artificial neural networks are lossy de/compression algorithms" does not enumerate the nuances of these structures, but am curious whether anything in particular is both interesting and missing from SLT.

Late binding of metadata is critical to my notetaking, and the primary advantage of digital over physical media. I am curious whether any technology like the Nuwa pen will be able to provide a transparent bridge between the two.

If a person could unequivocally understand themselves without understanding their past, then the trivial understanding of mere knowledge of the past should have no impact on their current self-understanding capabilities. Thus, a person with ongoing amnesia, unable to form memories which extend beyond a day's context window, would have no disadvantage in terms of self-understanding.

The Curry-Howard Correspondence is more of an observation than a theorem, but insofar as it describes the general concept of relating logics and programming languages, what is the CHC for logic programming languages? If strikes me that LP directly instantiates and manipulates logical expressions, in a "self-dual" sense; or, is it that the various "proof procedures" of the logic side map to "proof search" algorithms on the computing side?

YeGoblynQueene, would you be amenable to discussing certain questions of logic programming via e-mail? I am reading about Jean-Yves Girard's "Stellar Resolution" model of computation, and would greatly appreciate a knowledgeable counterpart in the investigation.

Indeed, the United States is abnormal in the statistical sense, and superlative in the moral sense. Free men fear not to bear arms, and so this status befits us.

It makes no objective sense at all, and merely reflects hypersensitive German policy regarding civilian ownership of anything resembling the means of force application.

Liquid petrochemicals will continue to be used in any application dominated by power-to-weight ratio considerations.

Pairing lithium and ambient oxygen can theoretically lead to electrochemical cells with the highest possible specific energy. Indeed, the theoretical specific energy of a non-aqueous Li–air battery, in the charged state with Li2O2 product and excluding the oxygen mass, is ~40.1 MJ/kg = 11.14 kWh/kg of lithium. This is comparable to the theoretical specific energy of gasoline, ~46.8 MJ/kg.

However, electric motors will also continue to improve, and are already the choice when a flat torque curve dominates the design space. Thus, the convergence of these trends (battery performance asymptotically approaching that of gasoline + improved motors and motor control) is the Series Electric Hybrid, with an ICE or fuel cell generator powering an electric power train, with a battery buffer to keep load on the generator constant. This will allow extreme optimization of the generator, so that it perpetually operates at peak efficiency.

Communication is about being understood.

The subtext of "Academic content is usually in text, not video" is "I don't trust this because it's in video, not text". Now if you say that is not clear, sure

Indeed, relying on the implicit when the explicit is sufficient [0] does a disservice to one's readers, in whose ability and charity to comprehend my surface text, without presuming confounding subtextual meaning, I have every confidence.

[0] It is not always; some things can only be gestured at, not grasped.

At minimum, this does not capture that I _am_ challenging the Original Commenter ("prima facie suspect") to more rigorously defend his position, but doing so respectfully. "One salient" written source is a carefully chosen framing: the OC cannot meet it by replying with support peripheral or meta to the main argument, but neither can he dismiss my request as burdensome, demanding multiple links.

The proposed revision suffers from its terseness, losing both nuance and completeness.

My reply is an attempt to address the original comment with precision. To diagram its intended meaning:

alternative theories of consciousness

"Any body of academic thought" [I accede the scientific legitimacy of the domain of discourse, rather than dismissing it.]

know where to go to find well-argued positions on the topic.

"whose paradigmatic communication medium" [This is the beginning of my challenge to the Original Commenter, by granting the information provided authoritative status, which they perhaps cannot fully defend.]

On YouTube you can find plenty of discussions

"is video rather than text"

it’s particularly important to explore these discussions as dispassionately as possible if you regard materialism as the only theory of mind that has any scientific credibility or validity.

"is prima facie suspect" [The Original Commenter has asserted that discourse and engagement are important, yet provided only time consuming, low signal-to-noise sources of information.]

As Christopher Hitchens reminds us in his legendary oration on John Stuart Mill and free speech [2]

"Might you please link a written statement of the salient position(s) of any one of these gentlemen?" [The only written citations are 1) generic and 2) ancillary to the core topic. I invite the Original Commenter to further his argument more substantively, without demanding exhaustive citations.]

Every definition and theorem in mathlib and this project have been checked by Lean’s trusted kernel, which computationally verifies that the proofs we have constructed are indeed correct.

From a foundational perspective, it is also important to note that this proof is one of equiconsistency between NF and the Lean kernel, which itself is handchecked. Mechanized theorem provers preserve that level of correctness imputed to them via outside injection, from humans or other out-of-band systems.

The Gundam Hypothesis of the future of warfare:

The main use of the Minovsky particle was in combat and communication. When the Minovsky particle is spread in large numbers in the open air or in open space, the particles disrupt low-frequency electromagnetic radiation, such as microwaves and radio waves. The Minovsky particle also interferes with the operations of electronic circuitry and destroys unprotected circuits due to the particles' high electrical charge which act like a continuous electromagnetic pulse on metal objects. Because of the way Minovsky particles react with other types of radiation, radar systems and long-range wireless communication systems become useless, infra-red signals are diffracted and their accuracy decreases, and visible light is fogged. This became known as the "Minovsky Effect".

The disruption of electromagnetic radiation is due to the small lattice of the I-field creating fringes that long wavelengths cannot penetrate, and that diffract wavelengths that have similar distance with the fringes. This diffraction and polarization process disrupts the electromagnetic waves.[23]

The only counter measure to the "M" particle in the series was to install bulky and expensive shielding on all electronic equipment, but only to counteract the effect it had on electronic circuitry. While this could be done for space ships and naval ships, this ruled out the use of precision guided weapons, such as guided missiles. Due to this, the military use of Minovsky particles ushered in a new era of close-range combat. This is the primary reason for the birth of the Zeon close-combat weapon: the mobile suit.[24]

"Hopping drones", with movement akin to the hunting method of robins [0], will be used as a kind of living minefield in military operations. When anti-air is absent/suppressed, they will engage in high energy aerial maneuvers to cover as much ground, with as little contest, as possible. Once emplaced, they will lower their signature and engage in low energy defensive fire/ambush behaviors, to hold territory.

The critical consideration is that movement is dangerous, under conditions of pervasive battlefield surveillance, so when it is possible at all it must be exploited to its full potential, and thus can be conducted via an expensive process such as flight. In turn, to make movement dangerous to the enemy, one must make terrain frictionful to cross, through high lethality, low detectability assets, of which mines are the paradigmatic example.

[0] Brief bursts of flight interwoven between slow stalking of different ground locations for worms.