musername · HackerTrans

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

it just shows that language design is part of IT that moves slowly, because they are good enough. Also, we do happen to have a few millenia of experience with languages, whereas most people get by quite alright without solving numerical puzzles of all kinds.

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

guess they have enough burger flippers and taxi drivers? /s

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

nwatson, the first part of that sentence doesn't make any sense, neither the rest

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

Maths should be preparing for this in advance. after all it's just maths, even with the sorting and all. We are not talking about systems programming or such like. Still, as others mention, having a pc with a debugger and other distractions is ... distracting.

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

The spread of this opinion has an upstart attitude to it. There might be a profit to be made in raising donations, or otherwise awareness, for the cause.

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

to assume that maths is itself the absolute truth ,which suppesedly actual mathematics are supposed to lead to, is an apt syllogism. It's saying, any kind of math that doesn't reveal an absolut truth isn't real maths.

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

it's a bit tongue in cheek, but many people agree, that's telling

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

It's a sense of realism where only those rights have meaning, that you can up hold, with brute force, the same way wealth f.ex. allows threatening and engaging adversaries with lawyers and court fees.

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

We don't have school nurses in, i believe, all of europe. Are children here dying in school? I didn't think so.

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

So let me put it this way. Your description of mathematics is not very amusing to me.

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

Zermalo-Frenkel Set theory with the Axiom of Choice is not proven to be consistent. One might argue that consistency is a natural requirement for a rule to be a rule. Especially for peano axioms, consistency is a given, so your comparison doesn't hold. Following the incomplefeness-theorem, the (dis-)proof might be external to any of ZFC's descriptions of the world, which believing in ZFC would be the world.

disclaimer: I don't understand axiom of choice.

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

But if so, it just shows that there are way too many laws.

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

If it from the latter sentence means the derivative, the sentence makes sense, because with y'=f(x,y(x)) we wanna solve the equation for y.

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

it's overwhelmingly not coal, a majority share is imported gas. Local energy is coal and renewables are under 5% last time I checked, that's true.

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

Legality should follow morality. You argued that it is immoral to prohibit drugs, if that fosters an underground market, because that market is likely violent and otherwise criminal. I say, drug abuse leads to violent or otherwise illegal, or at least immoral behaviour so it's only right to put them users into one bag with hardened criminals. The only market directly fostered by criminalization is the drug market. There are problems like quality control and stigmatization, sure ...

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

What if it is the idea, to let criminals deal with criminals. It's a circular reasoning if then the organizdd crime is said to be bad because it supplies drugs, that are dangerous and should be controled. I mean, if crime was only about drugs, the user would support the drug supply, i.e. the support. To support the support doesn't sound very unethical. The matter that is supported is the problem.

Sure, there is worse crime that may use drugmoney, but it might and does use legally optained funds after laundry as well. You might argue that the drug problem itself wouldn't flourish any less, if it was legal. I agree with the educational and medical perspective mentioned, but the medical moral is to not self medicate and the educational that the law is always right.

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

eztv the site or the group? the site is just a front. It also ran zoink.it as torrent-file host, but files are spread on other hosts, as well. Hardly anyone relies on the site anyway. Not to mention, I suspect I once a got a virus from a shady advert on an affiliated tracker/torrent-host.

Now I wonder, is this the industry turning prevention up a notch since Netflix et al proved a viable modle, or an attempt to abuse the userbase with ads and drive-by downloads?

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

* vice versa

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

reading the book still requires a significant amount of time

musername

قبل 11 سنةdiscuss

>Agda’s logic is constructive, which means it’s impossible to prove the statement that all statements are either true or false, . This proposition is called the law of the excluded middle. This makes it impossible to perform, for example, a general proof by contradiction, or other similar “classical” proofs from mathematics. There is a large philosophical debate among mathematicians (those who follow Hilbert, and those who follow Brouwer) as to which is better

Still, for a subset of statements and properties it is possible to construct a law of excluded middle, but it has to be a constructive proof. The whole idea of Constructive Mathematics is that you have to show a proof for both, the statement and it's negation to hold their respective truth values. The impossibility to proof the first statement, that of all statements the negation is implied, is surely tautologic, assuming it would hold true for most of all statements, just not a class the opening one is part of. This class is an empty element.

I would basically assume this means nonsense statements can be constructed, but they can't be used in constructive proofs. It doesn't imply that there has to be a class of nonsense statements where the opposite still holds value. I'm cautios of the definition for statements like there or in the multiple incarnations of the liars paradox (whats the latin plural). IE. a statement should by definition be provably correct either in positive or negative logic, hi and low to use ee terms, and one should imply the other polarity (edit: just not by using negation, because that's the relation you want to prove, without circular logic). The empty element is like null, but what logic set the true ^ negative or just the true statements have to be defined in I dont know.

Interesting to know that there is a tool for this kinda maths, I was under the impression that the debate tends to inductive methods, but here we have intuitionistic (constructive) logic, I take it.

comments