Yes but also no. One of the most fascinating applications I've seen is here: http://versor.mat.ucsb.edu (and in subsequent work).
There's already a decent tl;dr of the approach on that page, but the tl;dr of that tl;dr is that conformal geometric algebra seems to provide not only a rich language of geometric operations but--importantly!--these operations seem to compose intuitively and interpolate well ("well" in the same way interpolation between quaternions afford the most-natural interpolation between 3D transforms).
The work there uses it to develop tools for parametric design...I'd be very curious to see it extended (e.g. to include time dimensions).
What is notable though is that whereas a lot of the "hype" around geometric algebra revolves around the ostensible intuitiveness--"look, we only need Maxwell's equation, singular, in GA"--actually using it effectively seems to require acquisition of a lot of vocabulary and concepts (e.g. to make use of versor you need to know about blades, rotors, etc.)...the learning curve to use the material is actually steep. That wouldn't prevent it being used as the backend of some tool, but the idea that GA is intuitive and "easier" than alternatives doesn't seem to hold up in practice (IMHO)...at least for uses like these.
Then there's the efficiency issues in that, in general, each term in a k-dimensional geometric algebra will have 2^k coefficients (and thus adding two terms is ~ 2^k operations and multiplying is ~ 2^(k+1))...a good implementation will have a lot of difficult tradeoffs to consider.
Thanks for posting this. It's unlikely to get much discussion due to the lack of detail and the poor English (and it is hard to know the context here)...but it's interesting to see this nonetheless.
It's a wonderful luxury to craft such a sufficiently vast work of nonsense that no one possessed of sufficient reason to craft an informed critique will ever feel it worthwhile to invest the time to do so...one can putter away indefinitely in such a self-crafted safe space
You have "interesting" and, to be polite, "idiosyncratic" ideas and framing to the point that the expected cost/benefit (for me) of having a real discussion doesn't seem favorable.
Instead, I would offer you some friendly advice: since you have such strong views, I encourage you to write down your political predictions (what you think the new admin will do; what you think will happen as a result; how you think other parties will react, and how those reactions will play out...whatever you think is valuable).
File these predictions away and revisit them at some future date. Keep score!
What did you get right? What did you get wrong? When you get things right, were you right for the reasons you expected to be right, or did you get lucky?
When you get things wrong, was it because you had bad information? Faulty reasoning? Unexpected left-field development not reasonably foreseeable?
Doing this exercise will only serve to sharpen your mind and your understanding!
Very late to see this but am curious how these approaches handle words with numerous meanings (like run, which arguably has dozens if not hundreds of idiomatic meanings in English).
Distinct vectors for each meaning? One vector and the metric still works better than you'd think? It's not clear from the paper at a skim.
Nah, Trump and his crew are useful idiots when it comes to Russia; they think they are #1 teaming up with #3 to keep China stuck at #2, when the reality is they are getting tricked by the old "let's you and him fight, partner" gambit.
So, useful idiots, some bought off for stunningly cheap and others true believers or just outright incompetent.
Far likelier than a non-imperialist defense policy will be Flynn finally trying to launch that pre-emptive Christian jihad he's been salivating for, in partnership with Russia.
It would be nicer to see what you see, of course, but I can't what with having familiarity with the people involved.
Seconding the question because I want to see the encodings.
Intuitively this makes sense: in the GA formalism a "single" term requires 2^n fields (where n is the spatial dimension), and "simple" operations like addition and multiplication thus require 2^n (or more) operations to evaluate.
If you could instead somehow do those operations in O(1) time you would clearly pick up a rather nice speedup, but again I'm curious what the problems and encodings (as GA) actually look like.
I also don't like your odds here: the current site mechanics and moderation pace don't seem adequate to preserve the good parts of the site in the long run, but any significant overhaul would also risk the same.
> "Because Politifact and Snopes are biased and opinion based, they are not credible to determine whether stories are 'fake'."
Even here you could go more honest and humble--"I think that Politifact and Snopes are biased and opinion-based to the point I can't see them as credible to determine whether stories are fake"--but such a modest approach would indeed be very counterproductive if your real purpose here is to, as you say, invite reactions and watch your karma to take the pulse of the community.
> Yes, I provided no evidence. I don't care to. What minuscule effect can I hope to have on a tiny handful of strangers on the internet?
First I will explain the joke in my previous comment, since it seems to have gone over your head. Read what you wrote literally, as if someone else wrote it:
> I do not put myself out there as a disinterested arbiter of fact.
> Facebook isn't going to be appending my critical analysis to alleged fake news stores.
The joke I made works--or doesn't--based on whether or not you can see those statements as a self-evident good thing: wouldn't it be good and proper that Facebook isn't going to be appending your critical analysis to alleged fake news `stores` (sic), given that--by your own admission--you aren't putting yourself out there as a disinterested arbiter of fact?
Now to be a bit more serious.
You claim to have an argument...but, where? What is your argument? Where can I find it stated, explicitly, in words?
I can't imagine myself walking away from this conversation saying "you know, despite my initial reaction `halpiamaquark` was actually totally right about...". I mean really, how should I finish that sentence? What's the point you came in here trying to make?
You come across as wanting the world to know you don't like Snopes and Politifact and...that's it?
The play-by-play as I see it starts with this:
> The kosher fact checkers list includes the biased and opinion-based Politifact and Snopes.
That's not an argument; it's a statement of your opinion, but presented as fact.
Now purely talking rhetorical strategies I can't blame you here; after all if you'd lead with this:
> The kosher fact checkers list includes Politifact and Snopes. In my opinion, Politifact and Snopes are biased and opinion-based.
...I think the natural response would be "...and I care because? Is there going to be a point here, eventually?". On the other hand, if you just state your opinion like a fact it's pretty good bait--you'll get people jumping in to play the "I'm going to respond to what I guess you're probably thinking" game.
That's what happened: `morgante` played that game and made a guess, and then, in your own words:
> I rebutted that the fact checkers in question aren't simply disproving my worldview. Rather they are advancing an opinion-based counter-narrative under the guise of objectivity.
I'd characterize this as (a) rejecting his guess at what you think and, then, once again, (b) stating your opinion about Politifact and Snopes as if it were fact.
We're now 3 comments in and there's still no argument: what, again, is the point you're actually trying to make? I mean it's quite clear that you think Snopes and Politifact are biased because you repeat that claim every chance you get, but what's the implication? Can you be direct and make the point you're trying to make, or is there really no point to be had here?
At this point I jump in. It was amusing to me that there was something about presenting opinions as fact that had you so mad--so mad!--while on the other hand you seemed to have no way of expressing yourself other than, well, presenting your opinions as facts.
So I did make a snarky reply but I have to disagree with your characterization of it:
> You replied and suggested that I should be held to the same standard as a purported arbiter of truth.
...no, that's not it at all. Where are you getting this "should be held to the same standard as a purported arbiter of truth"? That's all you and your quarky ways, and presumably all your unstated ideas and assumptions that could perhaps comprise an argument if you were to surface them explicitly.
All I actually did was (a) take your quote:
> Politifact and Snopes push their opinionated worldview as though it is objectively true and morally righteous.
...and prepend an "I think" to it, and then (b) point out that failing to do so would've left you seeming guilty of the same thing you are so mad--so mad!--about Politifact and Snopes (allegedly) doing.
Your follow-up response was where you finally introduce some actual statements of fact:
> I do not put myself out there as a disinterested arbiter of fact.
> Facebook isn't going to be appending my critical analysis to alleged fake news stores.
...but despite finally providing something other than simple re-statements of your opinions, as a response this was incoherent.
I mean, yeah, I can guess what you might be thinking, but I'm not going to do your job for you.
If you want to claim to have an argument you have to, you know, actually make it: state your premises, show your steps, show your work, and how they all fit together to make the point you want to make. Otherwise you're just venting!
> But suggesting that farmers need city dwellers for humans to continue to exist is like thinking that compiler writers need the people that use compilers. Compiler programmers could do their work just fine without everyone writing web apps and the world would keep turning. But if the compiler writers went poof, I assure you that the web app folks would have a much harder time.
I never suggested farmers need city dwellers to continue to exist; there's a crisp distinction between "continuing to exist" and "continuing to exist in a recognizably-modern state".
The binary thought experiments aren't interesting to me; they usually wind up in degenerate cases that add little useful information. It's much more interesting to look at modest tweaks to the status quo and see how things play out differently.
I also suspected from the way you insist on lumping together "farms" and "rural"--really, from failing to make a useful distinction between the two--which makes it hard to have a productive discussion.
"Rural" is a settlement pattern; an exact definition is tricky to pin down but you can do a decent job of capturing the intuition if you define it as the intersection of "areas with population-density under some threshold" and "areas more than X miles away from a city larger than some minimum size", tailoring the numbers to suit your preference.
"Farming" is an economic activity; although a large percentage of farming is done in areas that'd be "rural" under the above definition, not all of it happens in such areas, and depending on how you calibrate the parameters you can get a surprisingly high amount of farming being done in what'd be at-best "semi-urban" areas.
It's just really hard to have a useful conversation if you're going to keep equating "rural" and "farm".
Anyways, I don't really find the "what if X went poof?" conversation interesting.
What is interesting is if, for example, you saw less and less redistribution and transfer payments at the state level and below, basically (as we've been discussing) leading to each locality having to pay more of its own way.
My conjecture is in this scenario you'd see a simple "contraction": farming proper would become increasingly concentrated in higher-density "halos" around the urban areas for obvious reasons (proximity to market, reduced operating costs vis-a-vis being further out, etc.) and the further out areas would increasingly be the territory of the high-scale industrial operations (who have the scope and economies of scale to net out ahead even after paying more of their infrastructure overhead).
What'd slowly evaporate in this scenario is the horribly in-efficient low-density in-between settlements that currently comprise most of the "rural" areas (by population and by area!).
Finally, don't be too enamored of Salatin (and honestly mentioning him together with Brown is a bit odd b/c most of what they have in common is getting noticed by the popular press).
Salatin just isn't that interesting (results-wise; as a person he's quite entertaining and gives a good interview). Brown's soil results are interesting but it's hard to really evaluate--and harder to replicate!--his other results, b/c he's very cagey with numbers and even more cagey with the kind of detail you'd need to duplicate it exactly.
For Brown's system in particular it's quite likely the productivity per acre is about as high as he claims but the effective total productivity may be much lower than he likes to suggest, due to (a) having to feed a lot of it back to the livestock and also (b) having only smallish areas doing actual production-for-market at any one time.
It's again super impressive for the soil-health aspect but the jury is very much out on how productive the style is, and unless he's opened up a lot lately it's hard to independently verify his implied productivity figures.
There's already a decent tl;dr of the approach on that page, but the tl;dr of that tl;dr is that conformal geometric algebra seems to provide not only a rich language of geometric operations but--importantly!--these operations seem to compose intuitively and interpolate well ("well" in the same way interpolation between quaternions afford the most-natural interpolation between 3D transforms).
The work there uses it to develop tools for parametric design...I'd be very curious to see it extended (e.g. to include time dimensions).
What is notable though is that whereas a lot of the "hype" around geometric algebra revolves around the ostensible intuitiveness--"look, we only need Maxwell's equation, singular, in GA"--actually using it effectively seems to require acquisition of a lot of vocabulary and concepts (e.g. to make use of versor you need to know about blades, rotors, etc.)...the learning curve to use the material is actually steep. That wouldn't prevent it being used as the backend of some tool, but the idea that GA is intuitive and "easier" than alternatives doesn't seem to hold up in practice (IMHO)...at least for uses like these.
Then there's the efficiency issues in that, in general, each term in a k-dimensional geometric algebra will have 2^k coefficients (and thus adding two terms is ~ 2^k operations and multiplying is ~ 2^(k+1))...a good implementation will have a lot of difficult tradeoffs to consider.