s-shellfish's comments

It's about direction of influence.

Physics should not influence math. Math has to be a consequence of it's own axioms, or have it's properties tested against it's own constructions.

Otherwise math falls apart. Then it's useless for physics.

Practical application is wonderful for math. But the direction math is crafted and interpreted matters a lot.

Yes, there's a real reason for using the word discovered instead of invented. Depends on how webbed in you are intellectually to people around you. Which is often highly dependent on language, logic, and math.

Lambda calculus. Enlightenment. Discovered, not invented. If it already exists somewhere... Everything coming together in the same patterns. Influence.

It's simple. Physics uses mathematics to construct equations that describe properties of physics.

The difference is physics has reality to test against - observations that can be measured. Math does not have this. Math's only metric against itself is itself.

I don't agree with this. And honestly, I really think that depends on what foundation you rely on to think with, work with, create with, test with, and check your own tests with. Physics does not have to use itself to understand itself. Math does.

I haven't done all the math for this (I've deeply investigated the pattern for 2x+1) but it seems like this would be an obvious and intuitive result of primes. You are still generating primes from primes. Yes, you find more primes, but the computation is still dependent on primes. I'm still of the opinion that there is no complete pattern to the primes.

I'm assuming the researchers do not have the intent of confusing a crystal lattice structure with an actual mathematical lattice, because while they possibly may share similar influences in their models, one is math, the other is physics.

#keepmathpure

Resilient systems will still break. They may break less, but it's impossible to anticipate every possible usage permutation of a system from here until eternity. There are tons of reliable methods to build resilient systems and they can still have their faults. What I'm talking about is resilient system or not - someone has to be there to fix it if it breaks. There is no silver bullet when it comes to software - sometimes the difference really only can be who puts the most time in.

Minds require rest to function optimally, so pushing yourself to an extreme comes at a cost that gets realized down the line instead. Identifying which means of functioning comes at the greatest cost is not easy to analyze or ascertain. So working together in addition to competing is important as well.

All principles of capitalism. Just, never before in history has there really been so much attention paid to the mind. Software, eesh, yep.

Pressure to compete. I don't think it's anything companies convinced people into doing, it seems more like one of those unwritten rules. Especially in tech. Your system breaks, you are responsible. Not good to simply look at the clock and say 'well that's a day' if you want more responsibility, leadership, respect, trust etc.

Yea, honestly it's probably not synesthesia. Information processing, the memory of a thing overlaid on top of something similar enough. Reasoning by analogy... imprecise.

This is cool, but it's not synesthesia. Synesthesia is literally a neurological phenomona. I have it, and it's very real. It's not simply an algorithmic encoding.

> Thanks. We have talked a few time here. Always a pleasure to exchange words with you.

Thank you, I feel the same.

> I hope that you will eventually be able to feel your art in a new way- not as sadness, but as the hope it inspires for those who do benefit from it.

Me too.

> Maybe some Metta Bhavana will help you feel and connect to the persons you positively inspire? like me here on hn, or the others who replied to you.

Thank you, Theravāda is something I've only studied briefly, but it is oriented similarly to my study of Mayahana Buddhism and Zen Buddhism.

I'm sorry for your losses.

My grandfather was an artist. Art is always sadness to me. Even my photography. The flavor of sadness, I've experienced a variety of these.

I don't know if this comes through in all of my art, but, that's me. Art, sadness. I suppose I detach from it by making art.

Nostalgia hurt... It's called grief. Grieve for things we can not change, can not fix. Calling it 'just a feeling of alienation'...

This deeply oversimplifies the complexities of life, the deepest tragedies, emotional pain. To lose something so beautiful, and to know it is gone, forever. That is grief that lasts a lifetime. It is a burden oneself must make appear to lighten over time, but, some types of sadness go into one's own core, every fiber and every root of one's own being.

A broken spirit, heart, soul. Through a reminder in the present, the slightest twinge of it trickles through, in the form of a memory, a connection leading to every interwoven emotion. It can be a kind of sadness that feels as though it never mends.

This is not the sort of thing to cover up with pleasantries for the benefit of others. The memory of being completely and totally disconnected from a most defining connections in one's own life - that is a type of suffering everyone can experience, and a kind of suffering everyone should have a deep respect for. It's not just nostalgia, because nostalgia comes back in waves, the attempt to bring back what is lost. Sometimes this works. But the death of a loving, shaping parent, or loss of connection to one's essential culture - that is something that, nothing fills that void entirely. There has to be respect for this. Everyone should have respect for this type of loss.

There has to be some mechanic always in place for consent. It's mechanical by nature.

The most powerful belief you can have is owning a core understanding that you have choice. That doesn't mean ignore valid points. The needs of the many... Always important to be aware of.

The internet IS serious business. Combining it so much with popular culture just dilutes understanding and destroys standards.

Dijkstra framed it best:

https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD103...

So, black box, closed source - e.g. history repeats itself.

Sharing code can be just as confusing as it is enlightening.

> how am I doing compared to previously/expectations/other people?

This is a twisted way to view happiness. Wouldn't you be happier if you helped others succeed? Feel connected, part of something you really believe in?

Happiness is so much more than prosperity. Money helps you avoid death. Happiness exists on an entirely different foundation.

In patriarchal societies, men stay fundamentally united while women compete against one another in a divided fashion. Important to not allow our differences and "competitive" advantages to be used as proxies for creating perpetual division.

But also, depends on circumstance. Don't have to see gender as being a problem unless you want to. Anything can be used against you for anything that can be used for you. That's both sides of everything. Nothing is ever an advantage, especially when being united (especially in technology!!!) is more advantageous than all the knowledge you could have access to.

I'm a software developer, female.

Blind leading the blind without metrics.

That's always the problem. Minds that aren't aware of this become more predictable.

Until they are aware of this.

I still have to personally hold onto the belief that no one mind is ever intrisincally more strong than any other mind. That's the belief assumed to be axiomatic and foundational for all the studying of minds people do.

If I can predict how I believe you will think, I assume I'm mentally stronger, but that stuff is not something anyone can hold onto as a certainty. At least that's my belief, my own faith, my own boundary I believe in that must not be violated. Trying to intentionally control how people think is extremely violent, to me. Just because it doesn't look violent, doesn't mean it's not.