And Alan Turing tried to live with it. Maybe that’s not the story you heard, but …
People forget that finger counting is machine learning too. (as far as your mind is concerned, your fingers are machines.)
One outcome of Simpson’s Paradox is that machines cannot replace statisticians in analysing results. A great deal depends on interpretation, as Marks shows. “Clustering remains largely an art.”
Dr Carol Wood of Wesleyan University (a student of Abraham Robinson who pioneered non-standard analysis 50+ years ago) has discussed the hyperreals in two Numberphile videos: First: Extended: Wenmackers may also be helpful: In effect, using Model Theory (thus a fair amount of protective hedging!) or other approaches, one may propose an “extension” of the […]
The story we ran on the topic at Mind Matters has gone viral via Slashdot, with five thousand views since yesterday afternoon. (A paper about CALCULUS?) Figures, Bartlett must have a point about the problem.
We usually think of basic mathematics such as introductory calculus to be fairly solid. However, recent research by UD authors shows that calculus notation needs a revision.
Karsten Pultz: The book is a great read for all interested in ID, Christianity, and the connection between the two.
In the demonstration below, a bit of acetone has been put on the corner of the brick to get the process started: This demonstrates the remarkable effects of inherent, embedded, intelligible structural, quantitative properties of fluorine and other elements and molecules. With lesser materials, we can see similar, even more spectacular effects: Notice, the table […]
For some weeks now, an underlying persistent debate on the reality of numbers has emerged in several discussion threads at UD. In part, it has been cast in terms of nominalism vs platonic realism; the latter being the effective view of most working mathematicians. Obviously, this is a first principles issue and is worth focussed […]
The mathematically provable idea that something exists but is unknowable has clear philosophical and theological implications.
He offers some here: When I teach a course, I too like to sell the sizzle at the beginning of each lecture. For a graduate course in information theory I teach, the students are told that they will learn why their cell phones use recently discovered coding that pushes the boundaries of what is mathematically […]
There is a creeping scientism in our intellectual climate. We have been led to think that Science is the gold standard of reliable, substantial knowledge and that institutional science and its leaders are the curators of knowledge. This is of course deeply connected to the wider domination of evolutionary materialistic scientism, which compounds the above […]
Hmmm. “Thinking” is a risky strategy suggestion in a world where consciousness is supposed to be an illusion or else a material thing —unless, of course, your coffee mug has it too.
Arkani-Hamed: “We’re not building a machine that calculates answers, he says; instead, we’re discovering questions. Nature’s shape-shifting laws seem to be the answer to an unknown mathematical question.”
We recommend you listen to the podcast, watch the video, and ignore Jerry. In fairness, he has got at least as far as realizing that anti-Semitism is a problem among the raging Woke. We can’t ask for more than that just now. It’s hard for a Darwinian to understand a mathematician anyway. We’ve seen it a few times before. Something about things adding up.