Jump to content

ydoaPs

Moderators
  • Posts

    10567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by ydoaPs

  1. No, it didn't. You may want to go back and read their announcement again. Either she lied, or she is so incompetent that after being FLOTUS, a Senator, and Sec State, she didn't know what classification markings are. I'm not sure which is the better option.
  2. It's not "funny", it's amazing and elegant. It gives a simply stunning expression for the invariant spacetime distance (well, its square, anyway). So, the diagonal of the Minkowski metric is 1, -1, -1, -1. This gives our distance measure as s2 = (cdt)2 - (dx)2 - (dy)2 - (dz)2. If you factor out a negative 1, you get s2 = (cdt)2 - [(dx)2 + (dy)2 + (dz)2]. The part in the square brackets is simply the Euclidean distance in the frame being analyzed. So, our metric gives us an amazing equation: (invariant spacetime distance)2 = (distance through time in a given frame)2 - (distance through space in the same frame)2. To me, that's pretty freakin rad.
  3. Yeah, I believe in solipsism. I've even got proof that it exists. I've got a copy of Descartes's Meditations on my bookshelf.
  4. Maybe, yeah, depending on how you view it. This is metaphysics indexed to physical theory. It's not reasoning what is real full stop; it's reasoning what is real if GR is true*. For this particular problem to go away, GR would have to be abandoned in all but name, as it's a matter that arises from the theory itself and is formalism invariant. It's not just an artifact of the EFEs. It is present in all equivalent formulations. Anything that we can accurately call GR has the problem that we can start with two identical metrics at the exact same point, take each along a different path to identical ending points, and have different metrics when you get there. So, if you mean that progress of physics removes the problem from the metaphysics of time, then sure. If you mean it removes the problem from GR, I'm not so sure, since it will mean GR will have changed to the point that it is unrecognizable from what it is now. Sort of. Some physicists still do metaphysics (like my intellectual mancrush, Carlo Rovelli), but over time, more physicists have abandoned going further from the model to what options it implies for reality. The problem with that is that sometimes the metaphysics is really important in coming up with new models (like in quantum gravity). I'd agree with that. And it's possible that it will go the other way for some issues, too. For example, if Rovelli's metaphysics of time ends up solving the problem of time for quantum gravity. Often, in metaphysics of physics, the line between the physicist and the metaphysicist is blurred (and sometimes physicists do metaphysics and sometimes philosophers do physics [i think it was John Earman that wrote a fantastic paper about whether or not one could survive time travel]). What is "it" that Gravity Probe B measured?
  5. That's because there isn't one. Once you get past molecules in the hierarchy, definitions don't seem to work for natural kinds. In practice, though we often talk about definitions, humans seem to use a family resemblance type theory of natural kinds. In the macro-level, definitions will always be either too broad or too narrow to capture all and only the phenomena they are intended to describe.
  6. They are a bad copying of Galen, and are still just as wrong as Galen was.
  7. The modern form of this question has been around since (and discussed by) Einstein in the form of the Hole Argument. TL;DR: The mathematical formalism leaves us with two options. Either GR is indeterministic, or spacetime points are merely mathematical convenience rather than anything ontologically real. This problem goes from blurring-the-line-between-philosophy-and-physics to a big effing deal for physicists when it comes to quantum gravity theories, because it is the direct reason behind The Problem of Time.
  8. Good thing we're grandfathered in, eh?
  9. Yeah, I didn't think about them just pulling charge until they go. We'd need a way to discharge them outside of the network upon a firing of a neuron in that layer. Maybe each neuron gets a set amount of time (like 1/4 second or less) to fire, otherwise it discharges to someplace outside the network?
  10. Sure you can. A simple Artificial Neural Network (even Deep Neural Networks or anything that isn't convolutional) is 2d. You have a layer co-ordinate and a neuron co-ordinate. And if you don't want it to be software, you could train the software neural net to your liking (make sure the neuron outputs in the input layer and hidden layers are binary [so a step function instead of a sigmoid or tanh], though). Then create a conversion between weights and resistance and between input sum and capacitors. Each capacitor (and a resistor to standardize the outputs)acts as a neuron, and resistors of various resistance act as the weighted connections. I'm not sure why you'd want to do that, but you could.
  11. Your post started with two objectively false statements; why ought we continue reading?
  12. It's not as though it's impossible. You'd just need an extra bit of hardware. Use as your seed variable(s) the timestamp of a decay of an atom of a radioactive source. A detector picks up the decay, logs the time, sends it to the number generator. Boom, an encrypted truly random number generator.
  13. How do you propose getting truly random variables?
  14. I haven't used it yet, but it's based on Ubuntu, so you should have access to the repos you can use in Ubuntu.
  15. Iirc, it's got a compatibility layer (like the opposite of Wine Is Not an Emulator), but I'm not sure what the extent of the functionality will be. For instance, I don't think it will have things like apt-get. apt-get will work. Is it the same? I know Windows has always had a command window, but afaik, the commands have always been different. While things like cd (Change Directory) are the same, things like pwd (Print Working Directory) are not the same in Windows. https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/03/30/run-bash-on-ubuntu-on-windows/
  16. Ever wonder what the computers less powerful than a TI-83 that guided the Apollo landers looks like? Well, it's now on Github for all to enjoy.
  17. That's the incorrect answer. You can do it just marking out the possibility space with pictures of doors, cars, and goats, or you can do it the Bayesian way and you get the same answer. That answer is not 50/50. You can run actual trials (as Mythbusters did) and confirm. 50/50 is an incorrect answer. Horrible quality video to follow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAljAvR3L4s
  18. A disadvantage of 10 is a well-known bug where it sometimes doesn't want to give you internet. Just Google the error on your phone. It's a simple enough fix; you just need to clear some registries and restart your computer.
  19. It sounds like you need some Arch in your life.
  20. The debian terminal is coming to Windows 10 soon, so 10 will finally bring a sensible console to Windows. Afaik, there are no such plans to bring it to 7. Also, the default anti-malware stuff on Windows 10 is actually some of the better free anti-virus software out there at the moment.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.