sclv

"more important than being able to do mathematics is to be sure the applications are meaningful." - e. bishop •

[sclv @sclv]

Well I’d like to see how the interests of capital could possibly assert themselves through THIS unhinged set of actors!
*The cunning of reason causes objects to act and re-act in accordance with their own nature easily*
Ah! Well. Nevertheless,

[Brooks Otterlake @i_zzzzzz]

If baseball teams cooperated instead of competing, they could work together to score a virtually unlimited number of runs. And isn't that the point? To score runs?

[Nassim Nicholas Taleb @nntaleb]

Every time I hear "10 sigma" event...

[antifa🔻girlfriend @lllliatttt]

Finally an answer to the question no one is asking: Would you rather have dinner with Mariama James or $9?

[davide🚩🔻 @criticofpolecon]

until I heard Joe Pesci say it I really wasn’t sold on China but now I’m in

[lewis @Lewiswbt1]

I can't believe this. I'm a massive Nathan Fielder fan and I spent months auditioning for a singing competition thinking it was a fake metatextual element of a new TV show he was making. It turns out it was a genuine singing competition with no comedic framing whatsoever

[@ratlimit @ratlimit]

Which would allow for a complementary clause to precede its head⹁ we need a backwards comma.

[sclv @sclv]

@difficultyang you can definitely prove a relation of your spec to the ieee model, and there’s lots of work doing this!

[sclv @sclv]

@goddess_norn hmmm… then polynomial could be introduced as a certain class of monoidal endofunctors on set.

[sclv @sclv]

correct, we should start with galois groups in 7th grade and then at a graduate level introduce polynomials as elements of their representation theory.

[alz @alz_zyd_]

The basic issue with math education is that it is old enough that it was mostly designed before the computer revolution, so retains a bunch of vestigial stuff which isn't that useful with computers. Like, polynomials are mainly just convenient functions for working by hand with

[sclv @sclv]

@nihilunbounded dog-eat-dog is the expression

[sclv @sclv]

@alhnbly45718 @Infernic1 start with order theory and then we can move to synthetic topology directly

[sclv @sclv]

@outis_000 @thomasfbloom i mean group theory is used pretty pervasively in most of the rest of math, so

[cynister darling @chaoticdumbasz]

insane just how much better this song is when it’s sung by someone who can actually sing

[Mira @_Mira___Mira_]

@minilek There were a bunch of NP-complete problems with subexponential algorithms already.

Including "Planar 3-SAT".

If I had realized that, I would've thought it very plausible that full 3-SAT was also subexponential.

[Tomek Czajka @TCzajka]

With the new results showing that 3-SAT can be solved in subexponential time, let me explain the confusing ways theoretical computer scientists talk about "exponential time".

There are two very different notions of exponential time in use:
1. The class E of problems solvable in 2^O(n) time, or equivalently O(2^(kn)) for some constant k, or O(c^n) for some constant c > 1.
2. The much broader class EXPTIME of problems solvable in O(2^(n^k)) time for some constant k.

The second is a misnomer: it’s the exponential of a polynomial, not just an exponential. But it’s the one complexity theorists usually mean, because it’s closed under polynomial-time reductions. In particular, every problem in NP is in EXPTIME.

Similarly, there are two notions of subexponential time:
1. 2^o(n): for every ε > 0, time O(2^(εn)), i.e. faster than O(c^n) for every constant c > 1. This one doesn’t have a standard class name.
2. The much smaller class SUBEXP: time O(2^(n^ε)) for every ε > 0.

The results announced by OpenAI and Anthropic run in approximately 2^(n /√log n) time. That makes 3-SAT subexponential in the first, weaker sense.

Proving 3-SAT is in SUBEXP would be a much bigger result. SUBEXP is closed under polynomial-time reductions and 3-SAT is NP-complete, so every problem in NP would then be solvable in subexponential time.

[sclv @sclv]

@krismicinski @b_n_d_l_e i attended an andre joyal talk once, perhaps on goodwille calculus, and felt for a moment i truly understood them, and that feeling never fully came back again.

[sclv @sclv]

not only ignorant of film, but also kathleen hanna

[PoIiMath @politicalmath]

OK, I'll bite. If John Cassavetes is so insanely influential and brilliant, why have I not heard about him until recently?

I've been on a side-quest with classic and esoteric movies, mostly through the Criterion collection. I've watched dozens of Criterion closet picks from filmmakers and actors I admire.

They pick Cassavetes films ALL THE TIME. Probably more than any other director except Scorsese. I haven't seen a single Cassavetes film. I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk about a Cassavetes film outside of those videos.

I'm not a slouch on film, I've got a pretty wide spread on what I've seen & what I appreciate. How has Cassavetes slipped through that net so completely for so long?

[sclv @sclv]

@nihilunbounded the first time someone told me they would update their priors was in 2015 and it was incredible i felt i was like in Arrival speaking to an alien species. I told the story for months. Now that shit is everywhere

[sclv @sclv]

flight attendant

[🇵🇸i have never heard of philosophy @dimitripilled]

Genuinely--what is the answer for men?

Manufacturing's gone. The trades exist, but they aren't growing. Healthcare and education are growing, but patients don't want male nurses and parents don't want male teachers. Are there any growing industries where they fit?