If there's one thing I took from my PhD it's that my specific speciality happens to be super important in scientific progress, and all other PhDs don't know what they're talking about
@HellenicVibes This is a really interesting question because "definite" means "every property has a specific real value" which isn't generally possible with quantum mechanics. But that's ok! Allow for matrix-valued properties and it all works! Or ignore objectivism, which is also ok!
@Wooflexis France is the only EU country that can justify AC on environmental grounds as their grid is 80% nuclear. Give us AC! Make the other countries switch to nuclear!
@justalexoki There’s a small group of Irish translators who decide on new Irish words as they arise in English. For instance when “selfie” came into being they decided on “féinín”, as “féin” means self. This way we don’t get simple gaelicised english words like “seilfí”.
The worst thing to happen to AI was becoming a consumer product, à la ChatGPT, so now everyone has opinions about how it will change the world. Quantum computing may never get there, hopefully, so the blue checks don't bother us that much.
Einstein's photoelectric effect paper (which won him the Nobel prize) had only 2 references. His special relativity one had none. The ways we do science has changed a lot in 100 years, and will continue to change, and hopefully the stuff that works is what survives.
@0xHondo But in maths what exists is what we can define. Trying to link them with directly accessible objects in physical reality isn't a good metric for justification - negative numbers and reals also "don't exist" by that method.
AI will probably solve a BIG maths problem (millennium-sized) some point soon. And it will kind of suck because the feeling of first solving it will not be felt by any human. Like in art, ceding the joy of creation to the machines feels like a tradeoff for faster productivity.
Twitter really is the Town Square, in that it's full of people peering in to established cultures and talkin' shit cause it doesn't make sense to them.
@WKCosmo Taking spacetime interval invariance as the axiom is more natural, and equivalent, but non-physicists wouldn't be able to opine about FTL as easily then.
@WKCosmo There's probably a bias in that the people who could see that LLMs would evolve to solve significant problems weren't commenting on the early cases, and you only read takes from people who were overly/underly impressed.
@stanislavfort This is the sensible take, imo. You should show what else is going on in the field, to show the reader how useful the general topic is, but a skim of the abstract / results / conclusions of those papers is fine.
@Noahpinion I have sympathy for laypeople who think of maths as a series of tasks to be done, like in school. In reality it's more like creative definitions -> questions -> proofs. Which makes it genuinely weird that it ends up being useful in e.g. engineering, coding, physics etc.
@martinmbauer I am optimistic that one day €1B will magically appear in my bank account without any effort from me, because I don't think the law of supply and demand is a fundamental limit.