I don't want to comment on Omega itself; it's just
two things in the original article that seem to be misleading:
The language of maths allows them [the mathematicians] to provide neatly ordered ways to describe everything that happens in the world around us. Or so they once thought.
Well, "neatly ordered" is true and will remain true, however many unprovable statements there are. But that we may describe "the world around us" in mathematical terms is purely incidential.
I'll admit, the origin of maths was to describe the things we see to get a little structure into this world. And that's one of the reasons why the two systems (i.e. Maths and Reality) fit together so nicely. But maths has evolved into something different, a world of its own, that has another
foundation: It's not reality anymore, it's axioms.
Being a mathematician myself, I have to keep telling people that "the real world is nice, but it doesn't really influence my work. Just like I don't expect my work to influence the real world."
Any similarities are utterly incidential. This is why statements like
"[Chaitin] has shown that mathematicians can't
actually prove very much at all"
irritate me. Of course we can. Although not everything true is provable (Gödel) it's still enough for all the mathematicians humanity will ever produce. Just don't thing we'll be able to tell you which shares to buy -- or, even, what structure there is to physics. Maths and physics have always profited from another, but that still doesn't mean they are necessarily similar..
Doing maths, he says, is just a process of discovery like every other branch of science: it's an experimental field where mathematicians stumble
upon facts in the same way that zoologists might come across a new species of primate.
I do agree. But that's no news at all.
Alright, some facts are expected and for some theorems it's only a matter of time to be proven. But anyone doing maths will have experienced that
you get from one thing to another in very much the described way. Most of the time, anyway. Omega doesn't change anything in this respect. Chaitin's claim more or less boils down to "Don't expect every specimen you encounter to be evolutionarily attached to the creatures you already know." Well, ok. We knew that, however hard it was to accept. It still doesn't tell you whether the problem you're working on does or does not have a proof. Keep on going regardless. Well, that's what I'd say.
Quite right. But on the other hand, IMHO that's exactly the way America acts, too. So why should it have changed in a future where almost all ideals are inspired by 20th century America?
And, BTW, this is not confined to StarTrek either.
... they aren't indeed. Verbosity is only one of the other problems.
At least two more things come to my mind that
make C++ more comfortable than Java:
Header files. It's very hard to have an overview of what a Java class can do, since there's no list of methods. I prefer the separation of head and code like in C++.
Java classes can only extend one superclass.
If you happen to have a whole hierarchy of classes, and only one of the most specialised is
to be an 'Observable' as well - bad luck. You'll have to put java.lang.Observable at the root of the hierarchy, or build your own interface.
Why not supply the Hopper with a pair of good
old-fashioned wheels? In that case, when it
detects less movement than anticipated (due to
hit-the-wall-and-roll-back effects) it could manoever itself out of the pit 'on foot' and
resume the hopping from a safe distance.
Hoping not to hop itself back into trouble.
Apparently, the policies differ from country
to country. Slightly. Or else they didn't update
the German policy information page yet.
It still says something on the lines of
"No data will be given to third parties -
except for anonymous analysis and improvement
of the database."
And statistics may be given to others - no surprise there.
For those who want to have a look (and can read
German): amazon.de
If they offerred a way to remove personal data,
they'd probably have none left to sell.
Or potential buyers wouldn't have any interest
in the rest - who needs information about
surfers who don't care?
Slashdot Mirror
The language of maths allows them [the mathematicians] to provide neatly ordered ways to describe everything that happens in the world around us. Or so they once thought.
Well, "neatly ordered" is true and will remain true, however many unprovable statements there are. But that we may describe "the world around us" in mathematical terms is purely incidential.
I'll admit, the origin of maths was to describe the things we see to get a little structure into this world. And that's one of the reasons why the two systems (i.e. Maths and Reality) fit together so nicely. But maths has evolved into something different, a world of its own, that has another foundation: It's not reality anymore, it's axioms.
Being a mathematician myself, I have to keep telling people that "the real world is nice, but it doesn't really influence my work. Just like I don't expect my work to influence the real world."
Any similarities are utterly incidential. This is why statements like "[Chaitin] has shown that mathematicians can't actually prove very much at all" irritate me. Of course we can. Although not everything true is provable (Gödel) it's still enough for all the mathematicians humanity will ever produce. Just don't thing we'll be able to tell you which shares to buy -- or, even, what structure there is to physics. Maths and physics have always profited from another, but that still doesn't mean they are necessarily similar..
Doing maths, he says, is just a process of discovery like every other branch of science: it's an experimental field where mathematicians stumble upon facts in the same way that zoologists might come across a new species of primate.
I do agree. But that's no news at all. Alright, some facts are expected and for some theorems it's only a matter of time to be proven. But anyone doing maths will have experienced that you get from one thing to another in very much the described way. Most of the time, anyway. Omega doesn't change anything in this respect. Chaitin's claim more or less boils down to "Don't expect every specimen you encounter to be evolutionarily attached to the creatures you already know." Well, ok. We knew that, however hard it was to accept. It still doesn't tell you whether the problem you're working on does or does not have a proof. Keep on going regardless. Well, that's what I'd say.
-----
-----
Quite right. But on the other hand, IMHO that's exactly the way America acts, too. So why should it have changed in a future where almost all ideals are inspired by 20th century America?
And, BTW, this is not confined to StarTrek either.
ERIC
---
We play to learn. Some just need to learn to play.
Oh, yes, could I please get one? *grin*
... leave out "in the past" when it comes to seeming highly stupid. ;)
Why not supply the Hopper with a pair of good old-fashioned wheels? In that case, when it detects less movement than anticipated (due to hit-the-wall-and-roll-back effects) it could manoever itself out of the pit 'on foot' and resume the hopping from a safe distance. Hoping not to hop itself back into trouble.
Apparently, the policies differ from country to country. Slightly. Or else they didn't update the German policy information page yet. It still says something on the lines of "No data will be given to third parties - except for anonymous analysis and improvement of the database." And statistics may be given to others - no surprise there. For those who want to have a look (and can read German): amazon.de
If they offerred a way to remove personal data, they'd probably have none left to sell. Or potential buyers wouldn't have any interest in the rest - who needs information about surfers who don't care?