It would be interesting if we would intentionally send out living material to distant parts of the Universe. Would we succeed "infecting" other planets? How long should we do that to actually cause anything significant?
This connection isn't sound. If my calculations are correct, it should be sometime around 2007 for whomever is reading this. DO NOT USE THESE CABLES. Something... happens with them. Something came through, something from somewhere else. We were overrun in days, not many of us are left. WE LIVE UNDERGROUND! ONLY YOU CAN STOP IT NOW. SAVE US. DO NOT USE THESE CABLES.
When you get into higher and higher education, you always feel that the previous educational level was much easier than the current one. You learn more in Primary School than in Kindergarten, you learn more in High School than in Primary School and then you learn more in University than in High School.
Now it is not at all surprising, that you may learn more at your first job than at your University. Learning process accelerates (at least you feel so).
Also, take into consideration that when you learn purely theoretic stuff, then you learn not just that stuff itself, but you are exercising your abstraction capabilities. Just remember how strange and foreign some concepts sounded at the beginning of the University, and how natural they became at the end of it! It is not about "I will never ever use [insert your fav. theorem here] in my life", it is about preparing your brain for interpreting abstractions.
Have you played table games with girls (Settlers of Catan or something like that)? They are extremely vengeanceful! Even if it is not rational. And at the end, you have to retreat with your "cold and logical" strategy as they punish you to nonexistence. Rationality/Irrationality is a slippery definition.
1) (provable(p == true)) or (provable(p == false)) == true
is not provable, but
2) provable(p or not p) == true
is provable.
"There might be reasons to be intuitionist but Gödel theorem is not one of them."
Now this is not true at all. Intuitionists reject the abstract notion of truth, and instead concentrate on provability and refutability. It is exactly because of Gödel's construction that p or not p is not an axiom as it means in intuitionistic terms formulation 1).
What shall we use to fill the empty spaces Where waves of hunger roar? Shall we set out across the sea of faces In search of more and more applause?
Shall we buy a new guitar? Shall we drive a more powerful car? Shall we work straight through the night?
Shall we get into fights? Leave the lights on? Drop bombs? Do tours of the east? contract diseases? Bury bones? Break up homes? Send flowers by phone? Take to drink? Go to shrinks? Give up meat? Rarely sleep? Keep people as pets? Train dogs? Race rats? Fill the attic with cash? Bury treasure? Store up leisure? But never relax at all
With our backs to the wall.
--- Eh, Pink Floyd deserves the sacrifice of some karma points...
Thinking more about the problem, probably some size adjustments of the subjects would be necessary, and adding more horsepower to the machinery seems also unavoidable. But yes, the desired result is achievable.
I read somewhere that children are unconsciously preferring meat and other high-protein foods over low-protein ones. In fact most of the children in the world that die in hunger does not die because they do not eat at all, but they do because they cannot get every nutrition element they need for development. Adults are more resistant to food deprivation.
Well, the term Mathematics is a bit ambiguous. It could both mean an abstract entity and it could mean the mathematical knowledge that humans collected/discovered. I was obviously referring to the latter. There are many holes in our mathematics and lot of unresolved meta-questions. There are axioms that we could choose to have or not to have -- therefore defining different mathematical systems.
There are also the intuitionists (like me) that do not accept some logical axioms, like law of excluded middle -- as Gödel theorem shows that there are statements that cannot be proven neither true or false, therefore (a or not a) == true is not provable as a tautology (at least generally).
We haven't even yet formulated mathematics in a REAL formal language -- there are and were many attempts, but no one succeeded yet. This would seriously help us in the long term, as the proofs would be checked by computers.
What is surprising is that there are about 60 proposed solutions, many of them using serious mathematics, and about half of them _must_ be wrong!
I always had the impression that mathematics are full of undiscovered errors and the foundations of mathematics are not so strong as implied. Of course this does not mean that math is bs, but we must be careful, and not be shy to question and reevaluate even old stuff.
Exactly this is why we are very careful when dealing with students, and always make sure we are never alone with one of them when we discuss, say, exam results. If there are other people around then it is much harder to accuse of abuse. Of course this is not perfect, but helps to avoid many dangerous situations.
You should bash Java, and C++ devs will agree. You should bash C++, and Java devs will agree.
Now you bashed both languages that has probably the most devs. Except some dynamic languages, of course (PHP and JS comes to mind). Oh, you insulted them, too.
"Don't fall into the trap of thinking that all brains work the same way.
It has been soundly demonstrated that certain types of kid excel using one method of learning while other types excel with another, and that the two learning approaches are pretty much incompatible. This is a scientifically solid stone cold fact with fucktonne of data to back it up."
I totally agree with you. What I must add, though, is that teachers have their own personalities that implies their method that fits best. Therefore not only learning approaches, but teachers must be carefully selected for the children.
Slashdot Mirror
1. First they ignore you
2. then they laugh at you,
3. then they fight you,
4. then you quote Gandhi
5. ???
6. Profit
It would be interesting if we would intentionally send out living material to distant parts of the Universe. Would we succeed "infecting" other planets? How long should we do that to actually cause anything significant?
Huh?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA...
All of my IDs and cards fit nicely in a metallic business card case. It's cheap, small, looks nice and blocks radio.
One of the reviews:
By John L. (Border of Wasteland, Former USA)
This connection isn't sound. If my calculations are correct, it should be sometime around 2007 for whomever is reading this. DO NOT USE THESE CABLES. Something... happens with them. Something came through, something from somewhere else. We were overrun in days, not many of us are left. WE LIVE UNDERGROUND! ONLY YOU CAN STOP IT NOW. SAVE US. DO NOT USE THESE CABLES.
All your precious bodily fluids belong to us.
What? You also have a giant immersion heater in the Yukon river?
You American bastards!
When you get into higher and higher education, you always feel that the previous educational level was much easier than the current one. You learn more in Primary School than in Kindergarten, you learn more in High School than in Primary School and then you learn more in University than in High School.
Now it is not at all surprising, that you may learn more at your first job than at your University. Learning process accelerates (at least you feel so).
Also, take into consideration that when you learn purely theoretic stuff, then you learn not just that stuff itself, but you are exercising your abstraction capabilities. Just remember how strange and foreign some concepts sounded at the beginning of the University, and how natural they became at the end of it! It is not about "I will never ever use [insert your fav. theorem here] in my life", it is about preparing your brain for interpreting abstractions.
Whoosh!
As someone on another blog observed, the REAL outcome is that no matter what phone you own -- girls has more partner than men.
Don't worry, they will pass a law that prohibits this technology... Privacy is obsolete, so they say.
Have you played table games with girls (Settlers of Catan or something like that)? They are extremely vengeanceful! Even if it is not rational. And at the end, you have to retreat with your "cold and logical" strategy as they punish you to nonexistence. Rationality/Irrationality is a slippery definition.
Ok, I realize my error here. It is true that
1) (provable(p == true)) or (provable(p == false)) == true
is not provable, but
2) provable(p or not p) == true
is provable.
"There might be reasons to be intuitionist but Gödel theorem is not one of them."
Now this is not true at all. Intuitionists reject the abstract notion of truth, and instead concentrate on provability and refutability. It is exactly because of Gödel's construction that p or not p is not an axiom as it means in intuitionistic terms formulation 1).
What shall we use to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger roar?
Shall we set out across the sea of faces
In search of more and more applause?
Shall we buy a new guitar?
Shall we drive a more powerful car?
Shall we work straight through the night?
Shall we get into fights?
Leave the lights on?
Drop bombs?
Do tours of the east?
contract diseases?
Bury bones?
Break up homes?
Send flowers by phone?
Take to drink?
Go to shrinks?
Give up meat?
Rarely sleep?
Keep people as pets?
Train dogs?
Race rats?
Fill the attic with cash?
Bury treasure?
Store up leisure?
But never relax at all
With our backs to the wall.
---
Eh, Pink Floyd deserves the sacrifice of some karma points...
No.
Thinking more about the problem, probably some size adjustments of the subjects would be necessary, and adding more horsepower to the machinery seems also unavoidable. But yes, the desired result is achievable.
Yeah, like putting them into the automatic mail sorting system.
I read somewhere that children are unconsciously preferring meat and other high-protein foods over low-protein ones. In fact most of the children in the world that die in hunger does not die because they do not eat at all, but they do because they cannot get every nutrition element they need for development. Adults are more resistant to food deprivation.
You should never spoil good spinach by cooking. Just buy some tasty, fresh, raw baby-spinach and put it into your sandwich.
Well, the term Mathematics is a bit ambiguous. It could both mean an abstract entity and it could mean the mathematical knowledge that humans collected/discovered. I was obviously referring to the latter. There are many holes in our mathematics and lot of unresolved meta-questions. There are axioms that we could choose to have or not to have -- therefore defining different mathematical systems.
There are also the intuitionists (like me) that do not accept some logical axioms, like law of excluded middle -- as Gödel theorem shows that there are statements that cannot be proven neither true or false, therefore (a or not a) == true is not provable as a tautology (at least generally).
We haven't even yet formulated mathematics in a REAL formal language -- there are and were many attempts, but no one succeeded yet. This would seriously help us in the long term, as the proofs would be checked by computers.
What is surprising is that there are about 60 proposed solutions, many of them using serious mathematics, and about half of them _must_ be wrong!
I always had the impression that mathematics are full of undiscovered errors and the foundations of mathematics are not so strong as implied. Of course this does not mean that math is bs, but we must be careful, and not be shy to question and reevaluate even old stuff.
Exactly this is why we are very careful when dealing with students, and always make sure we are never alone with one of them when we discuss, say, exam results. If there are other people around then it is much harder to accuse of abuse. Of course this is not perfect, but helps to avoid many dangerous situations.
You should bash Java, and C++ devs will agree. You should bash C++, and Java devs will agree.
Now you bashed both languages that has probably the most devs. Except some dynamic languages, of course (PHP and JS comes to mind).
Oh, you insulted them, too.
OMG...
Yum!
"Don't fall into the trap of thinking that all brains work the same way.
It has been soundly demonstrated that certain types of kid excel using one method of learning while other types excel with another, and that the two learning approaches are pretty much incompatible. This is a scientifically solid stone cold fact with fucktonne of data to back it up."
I totally agree with you. What I must add, though, is that teachers have their own personalities that implies their method that fits best. Therefore not only learning approaches, but teachers must be carefully selected for the children.