Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


wtf last won the day on February 14

wtf had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

63 Excellent

About wtf

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
  1. Factually false, read the two threads. People who understood me may be in the minority but the set's not empty. I won't be posting further on this topic.
  2. I'd like to hear from the moderator, not just the critic. I get that the critic stated his case. I am curious to know why the moderator bought it. Thanks for the kind words. If I had it to do over again I'd have either made my point in a much more literal way, or else said nothing at all.
  3. Of course, and you had no problem understanding that. I HAD to. The subject was monkeys. I wanted to make a point that evolution managed to produce a primate who typed out the works of Shakespeare. To do so I had to speak casually and conflate primates and monkeys and ignore the technical details of evolution. I had to ignore the technical point in order to make the real point. That evolution did what probability never could. Someone missed my point so completely, and took my post so literally, that they fired off an indignant message to a moderator, who decided to go along with the deliberate misreading of my post. I have no use for people who are either so literal they can't understand the larger point; or who PRETEND to be so literal in order to be able to reel off a sequence of gotchas, none of which are on point to the sense of what I wrote. People like that, I have no interest in responding to. My estimation of that individual stands as stated. I'd like to hear from the moderator who moved my post. Did you honestly think I was suggesting a specific mechanism for evolution? That that was the *point* of my post? As opposed to simply noting the interesting fact that evolution provides a far better mechanism for writing plays than randomness does? Why did you choose to elevate the complainant's disingenuous literalism to forum policy?
  4. Nice talkin' to y'all over the years on this site. I'm probably going to get banned by humorless scolds who can't read through a tongue-in-cheek post to the deeper more serious point, which I then explained in detail. All the best.
  5. Math markup works fine for me on this site. [math]\mathbb C[/math] renders as [math]\mathbb C[/math]. Doesn't work for you?
  6. I recently made the observation, in a thread about the odds of monkeys eventually typing out the works of Shakespeare, that this has in fact already happened. That human beings, according to the theory of evolution, are in fact monkeys who evolved to write the complete works of Shakespeare. My post was moved to the Speculations forum. A post from one of the moderators says: Please note that all posts that are baseless in scientific fact or that are outside of mainstream physics can and will be moved to the Speculations forum. Make sure that you think about the nature of your post before you hit the "post" button. I must say that I am puzzled. Evidently some moderator on this site feels that discussion of evolution is "baseless in scientific fact." I would like to know, so that I can avoid running afoul of the forum rules in the future, what exactly is this forum's position on evolution? If I say that primates on earth used to live wild in the woods and eventually, over millions of years, evolved to write the complete works of Shakespeare, is that idea regarded as being outside of mainstream science? If so, I apologize and I affirm that the world was created in six days by God, and that He impregnated a woman who gave birth to the Baby Jesus, to whom I swear my total and undying devotion. I reject evolution and all heretical notions that man evolved from monkeys. I trust that I am now back in the good graces of the moderator who labeled as "baseless speculation" my suggestion that humans are monkeys who learned to type. It's not my fault, I learned these heretical ideas in the public schools, from which religion has been ruthlessly expunged by the Godless minions of Satan and the United States Supreme Court. See Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), in which the court "ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools." May they all burn in everlasting hell. Yours in the Brotherhood of Christ and against the evil Darwin and his deluded followers.
  7. I must say I'm puzzled that my post about evolution would be moved to Speculations. Did this become a Creationist website? All praise the Baby Jesus then, and God who created the world in six days and rested on Sunday. So if everyone is so sure my thought experiment is so unrealistic, then how to you explain the fact that it already happened? Are you saying it's too big a leap to start the monkeys on typewriters, and we should start them out making marks in the sand with a stick? That's probably how we got started. But that's not an objection to my point, it's just a refinement to the experiment. Ok we start them out with sticks and reward them for making meaningful marks. Eventually they'll invent typewriters, just like we did. What, you think our typewriters fell from the sky? How does everyone suppose the primates Homo Sapiens managed to write the complete works of Shakespeare in only 14 billion years since the big bang? I'm simply astonished to find people on a science forum taking exception to the idea that a group of monkeys would evolve written language. Have the public schools gotten this bad?
  8. Jeez man that's not right. What is the dimension of [math]\mathbb R^2[/math]? If you're thinking of [math]\mathbb R^{\mathbb N}[/math], the direct product of countably many copies of the reals; or else perhaps [math]\oplus_{\mathbb N} \mathbb R[/math], the direct sum of countably many copies of the reals, both of those are infinite-dimensional vector spaces. The direct sum is the set of functions on the naturals that are zero at all but finitely many places. The direct product doesn't have that restriction. It's like the distinction between the collection of formal polynomials versus the collection of formal power series. The direct sum has countably infinite dimension. The direct product can not possibly have countably infinite dimension. Why is that? Because linear combinations are defined as being finite. So the obvious basis [math]\{e_i\}[/math] doesn't work for the direct product, while it does for the direct sum.
  9. I just skimmed through the topic of one-dimensional random walks on the integers over at Wiki and although I don't have any more insight into any of this, I did discover a whole lot more things I'll never know anything about.
  10. I had this crazy thought and this is a thread hijack so please feel free to not read this. But I had this thought. You get some monkeys and some typewriters. Or even better, an early version of a direct neural interface! The next generation of brain sensors and software is going to be incredible. So you feed the monkeys a boring, bare subsistence diet. But anytime they type (or think) a coherent word, or even a word fragment, they get a reward. A banana chip or a strawberry or something. And now here is the idea. We always think of monkeys typing forever as if the monkeys are immortal. But instead, what if the monkeys are allowed to breed too? We have a whole colony of monkeys, and they each have an eight hour work shift, an eight hours sleep cycle, and eight hours of home life. Cable tv, sex, whatever monkeys do. You'll note that what I described is no different than the life of the average middle class worker in our society. But I didn't come here to talk about sociology so I'll get on with it. Now: Over multiple generations of breeding, what happens? Well, the monkeys who get more treats have higher status in the tribe, and therefore higher reproductive likelihood. So we would breed monkeys to type word fragments ... then words ... then sentences. The question is, Do you think the monkeys would get smarter over the years, and in a few generations or a few hundred, the would learn how to think abstractly ? Just like us. Oh thanks for listening to my idle thoughts for the day. But really ... this is the deeper meaning of my earlier question. How did a monkey named Shakespeare evolve to create his works? What are the odds of that? And what does it mean that it happened to us? That's the essence of the question about the monkeys. It's about how we ourselves managed to type out the complete work of Shakespeare in only 14 billion or so years since the big bang.
  11. LOL. Nevermind. Here's the answer you were hoping for. "Congratulations. Enclosed find check for US $1,000,000 for solving the P = NP problem. Your Fields medal is in the mail too." All the best.
  12. I suggest starting with the link I gave in my previous post, about countable and uncountable sets. After that you might consider learning some basic computer science. I'm afraid I can't add much to what I've written. You need to master the basics.
  13. If P is infinite then what can "Compa(p) = Order(P) - 1" possibly mean? Since P is infinite, is Order(P) - 1 any different than Order(P) + 47? Do you understand that by definition all algorithms consist of a finite sequence of steps? You are demonstrating a complete lack of basic knowledge of the subject areas you are attempting to work with. Why not just pick up the basics? Start here. We'll work up to basic computer science later.
  14. Have you considered studying the very basics of computability theory and infinitary set theory before tacking P = NP? Do you understand my point about the countability of the set of Turing machines?