Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #110252 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-22 03:50 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-06-23 15:37 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-22 03:50 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? pdorange@pas-de-pub-merci.mac.com (Pierre-Alain Dorange) - 2016-06-21 20:01 +0200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-06-21 21:32 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-22 11:40 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Nagy László Zsolt <gandalf@shopzeus.com> - 2016-06-27 15:27 +0200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-22 11:38 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? pdorange@pas-de-pub-merci.mac.com (Pierre-Alain Dorange) - 2016-06-22 08:21 +0200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-22 16:34 +0100
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:19 -0400
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? pdorange@pas-de-pub-merci.mac.com (Pierre-Alain Dorange) - 2016-06-22 19:18 +0200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-22 20:17 +0100
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:50 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-23 13:59 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-06-23 04:40 +0000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-23 16:45 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-23 15:39 +0100
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-23 15:04 +0000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-24 02:44 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? pdorange@pas-de-pub-merci.mac.com (Pierre-Alain Dorange) - 2016-06-23 19:14 +0200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-23 20:22 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? pdorange@pas-de-pub-merci.mac.com (Pierre-Alain Dorange) - 2016-06-24 09:53 +0200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-24 13:38 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-06-26 11:43 +1200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-06-26 11:40 +1200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-26 10:09 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-06-27 11:08 +1200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-27 12:59 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-27 09:40 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 06:15 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-27 16:45 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 07:01 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-27 17:12 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 07:27 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-27 20:03 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-06-28 18:12 +1200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 23:25 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-28 16:27 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-06-28 18:12 +1200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-28 09:23 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-28 09:39 -0400
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-29 01:22 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-28 19:36 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-28 19:42 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-29 19:35 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-29 13:54 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 18:33 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 19:13 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 12:38 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-30 18:24 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> - 2016-06-30 11:35 +0200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 02:42 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> - 2016-06-30 12:13 +0200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> - 2016-06-30 12:11 +0200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-01 03:18 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:28 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-01 04:03 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:19 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-07-01 18:20 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 22:46 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-08-01 12:53 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 20:41 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 20:54 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 21:05 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 01:05 -0600
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 19:48 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-30 09:24 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 23:29 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-30 07:47 -0400
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-30 14:54 +0000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-06-29 23:57 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 00:16 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-06-30 00:32 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 00:39 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-30 18:27 +1000
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> - 2016-06-30 09:17 +0200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 00:17 -0700
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-06-30 18:06 +1200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-30 09:32 +0300
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-29 09:55 -0400
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-06-26 11:15 +1200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-06-26 00:31 +0100
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-23 20:04 +0100
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? pdorange@pas-de-pub-merci.mac.com (Pierre-Alain Dorange) - 2016-06-23 19:07 +0200
Re: Can math.atan2 return INF? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-06-23 15:37 +0100
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 20:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87vazl5f5z.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #112166 |
Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> writes: > If Intuitionism influenced computer science, where is the evidence of this? > Where are the Intuitionist computer scientists? Pretty much all of them, I thought. E.g. programs in typed lambda calculus amount to intuitionistic proofs of the propositions given in the types (this is the Curry-Howard correspondence). Languages like Coq and Agda use the correspondence directly so you can state a specification as a type, then prove the type as a theorem, and then extract the proof as executable code which is certified to implement the specification. The trendy area now is called "homotopy type theory", but I don't understand even a tiny bit of it. Intro to Coq: www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/sf/current/index.html Proofs and types: www.paultaylor.eu/stable/Proofs+Types.html Homotopy type theory: github.com/HoTT , homotopytypetheory.org There's also a wiki at ncatlab.org which is in the intersection of logic and CS, that develops a lot of this stuff. > On the contrary, academic CS seems to have come from the Logicist > school of thought Do you mean formalist? I thought that logicism was the idea that mathematics could be derived from pure logic, and thus it went away when Gӧdel's incompletness theorems appeared.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 20:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5e2230a-e4b9-4146-9a77-2d5e86e76e3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #112167 |
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:12:00 AM UTC+5:30, Paul Rubin wrote: > Steven D'Aprano writes: > > If Intuitionism influenced computer science, where is the evidence of this? > > Where are the Intuitionist computer scientists? > > Pretty much all of them, I thought. E.g. programs <details snipped> Yeah… Saying what does CS have to do with Intuitionism is like asking what what does Carnot’s (theoretical) heat-engine have to do with Toyota
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 21:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2909506b-ea11-481a-adf3-4ee6ed654c62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #112166 |
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 8:23:49 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 03:46 pm, Rustom Mody wrote: > > > Lots of questions... I would guess rhetorical. > > They weren't rhetorical. > > You've made a lot of claims about the origins of computer science, and I've > questioned some of your statements. Answers would be appreciated. > > > > However under the assumption that they are genuine (or could be genuine > > for others than you), I went back and checked. > > I recollected that I started thinking along these lines — viz. that > > philosophical disputes led to the genesis of computers — after reading an > > essay by a certain Adam Siepel... which subsequently seems to have fallen > > off the net > > > > I tracked him down and re-posted his essay here: > > http://blog.languager.org/2016/07/mechanism-romanticism-computers.html > > > > Just to be clear — this is Dr. Adam Siepel's writing reposted with his > > permission > > > The essay is not awful, but I wouldn't shout its praises either. It looks to > me like an undergraduate essay, taking a very narrow and rather naive view > of the field. There's not a lot of references (only nine), which means the > author is (in my opinion) excessively influenced by a small number of > views, and I don't see any sign that he has even made a half-hearted > attempt to seek out alternate views. > > The author makes a claim: > > "... Principia Mathematica, between 1910 and 1913, which in its attempt to > place mathematics squarely in the domain of logic, represented the first > new system of logic since Aristotle" > > but doesn't give any justification for the claim. Why single out the > Principia and ignore the works of the Stoics, Peter Abelard, William of > Ockham, Augustus DeMorgan, Gottlob Frege and most especially George Boole > dismissed? > > I would think that if anyone truly deserved credit for creating a new system > of logic, it should be Boole. But perhaps that's just a matter of opinion > on where you draw the lines. > > http://www.iep.utm.edu/prop-log/#H2 > > That's not really central to his argument, but it does suggest that his > views are quite idiosyncratic. To my mind, that feels like someone claiming > that Stephen Hawking is the first genuinely original physicist since > Newton. Einstein? Schrödinger? Dirac? Never heard of 'em. > > A rather large section of the essay is an irrelevant (and, I think, > incorrect) digression about "Mechanists" and "Romantics", neither of which > is really relevant to the philosophy of mathematics. He eventually mentions > the Intuitionists, but I don't think he understands them. By linking them > to the Romantics, he seems to think that the Intuitionist school of thought > doesn't require mathematical proofs, or that they are satisfied with > the "intuitively obvious truth" of axioms. But that's not what the > Intuitionists were about: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionism > > He mischaracterises and over-simplifies the argument over the foundations of > mathematics: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer–Hilbert_controversy > > with at least three separate groups involved (Logicists such as Russell, > Formalists such as Hilbert, and Constructivists such as Poincaré -- four > groups if you count Intuitionism separate from Constructionism). He > exaggerates the death of the Logicist school of thought. It continues today > with Second Order Logic. > > And I wonder why you are taking this essay as supporting your position. > According to this essay, the Intuitionists won in mathematics. And yet > Turing and Von Neumann (two major pioneers of computing) were "Mechanists". > If Intuitionism influenced computer science, where is the evidence of this? > Where are the Intuitionist computer scientists? On the contrary, academic > CS seems to have come from the Logicist school of thought, and practical > computer engineering from "whatever works" school of thought. > > None of this even *remotely* supports your assertions such as "[Turing] > wishes to put the soul into the machine". Maybe he did. But this essay > gives no reason to think so, or any reason to think that Turing's personal > beliefs about souls is the slightest bit relevant to computer science. My agreement vis-a-vis this essay is basically this: Abstruse philosophical how-many-angels-on-a-pin type arguments amongst philosophers of math/logic across 19-20 century gave rise to Computers and Computer Science. Some of the other detailed points you make, I agree with, eg. 1. There were more than 2 parties in the dispute 2. There is some arbitrary line-drawing there (Un)fortunately arbitrary line-drawing is the name of the game everywhere: Religion→Philosophy→History→Politics <OT-Aside> Right now as we speak there looks like a war — maybe world-war — in offing: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-and-nato-are-preparing-for-a-major-war-with-russia/ Possibly democrat-engineered to discredit Trump: https://www.thenation.com/article/neo-mccarthyism-and-olympic-politics-as-more-evidence-of-a-new-cold-war/ All starts with the disorder in the middle-east and a whole lot of arbitrary lines drawn there [Going backward in time] - A line drawn in space called ‘Israel’ - Based on a line drawn in time called the ‘Exodus of Moses’ - Based on the supremely authoritative history-record called ‘The Bible’ (or Torah depending on the speaker) Leaving aside the first and the third, why specifically the Exodus as a definer? Before Canaan they were in Egypt, so Israel=Egypt is equally legitimate And before…before… they were in Eden. Why not set Israel up in Eden? May it just be the (in)convenient fact that knocking the Palestinians out of their homes is easier than removing Mr. God from Eden? Collapse of borders: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-in-a-borderless-world-the-days-when-we-could-fight-foreign-wars-and-be-safe-at-home-may-be-long-a6741146.html </OT-Aside>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 01:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.99.1470068689.6033.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #112169 |
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote: > All starts with the disorder in the middle-east and a whole lot of arbitrary lines > drawn there > [Going backward in time] > - A line drawn in space called ‘Israel’ > - Based on a line drawn in time called the ‘Exodus of Moses’ I'm no expert but I believe that Zionism was based upon the idea of Negation of the Diaspora, not Exodus. > - Based on the supremely authoritative history-record called ‘The Bible’ > (or Torah depending on the speaker) > > Leaving aside the first and the third, why specifically the Exodus as a definer? > Before Canaan they were in Egypt, so Israel=Egypt is equally legitimate > And before…before… they were in Eden. > Why not set Israel up in Eden? Since the Exodus story has it that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt (despite the utter lack of archaeological evidence that they were ever there en masse), placing Israel in Egypt would seem rather insulting. > May it just be the (in)convenient fact that knocking the Palestinians out of > their homes is easier than removing Mr. God from Eden? Fun historical fact: the land of Palestine was so named by the Roman Emperor Hadrian after he kicked the Jews out of their homes and forced them to leave. The name was a Romanization of the ancient land of Philistia, home of the Philistines, despite that they were long gone by this point. So the entire existence of Palestine is basically one big fat Roman middle finger to the Jews. Not that any of this is meant to condone any of the violence in the Middle East.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 19:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9902c200-52d0-4e70-baa0-f721a4ed2ee5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #110830 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 1:55:18 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thursday 30 June 2016 12:13, Rustom Mody wrote: > > > In particular the question: "Are real numbers really real?" is where it > > starts off... http://blog.languager.org/2015/03/cs-history-0.html > > The pre-history of what later became computer science is very interesting, but > I fear that you are too focused on questions of "mysticism" and not enough on > what those people actually did and said. I’ve been preparing material for some classes on Theory of Computation (ToC) Starting from the premise that in a way Gödel is more primary to ToC than Turing [And also been fan of Gödel-Escher-Bach from my college days] And came across this proof (by Gödel!) that God exists <tickled> : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 09:24 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <878txnmbx0.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #110794 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com>: > Every time somebody tries to point to an example of a “topic that is > beyond the reach of science”, it seems to get knocked over eventually. Of course, an experiment trumps theory, always. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 23:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3edf4137-d1f2-4198-8530-d57a7bc93621@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #110817 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 11:54:54 AM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Lawrence D’Oliveiro : > > Every time somebody tries to point to an example of a “topic that is > > beyond the reach of science”, it seems to get knocked over eventually. > > Of course, an experiment trumps theory, always. The scholastics would call the question: "How many angels can dance on a pin" a 'thought-experiment'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 07:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.135.1467287279.2358.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #110818 |
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 23:29:41 -0700 (PDT), Rustom Mody
<rustompmody@gmail.com> declaimed the following:
>On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 11:54:54 AM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro :
>> > Every time somebody tries to point to an example of a “topic that is
>> > beyond the reach of science”, it seems to get knocked over eventually.
>>
>> Of course, an experiment trumps theory, always.
>
>The scholastics would call the question: "How many angels can dance on a pin"
>a 'thought-experiment'
And before one can answer that, one must first answer:
Do angels even dance?
Are we talking a small-head sewing pin, or a large ball-headed map pin?
And is there a limit on how small an angel can compress itself (the old
testament angels tend to appear as large "beings", whilst the new testament
has them mostly human sized)
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 14:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <joadz.1241015$UD7.800962@fx39.am4> |
| In reply to | #110817 |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:24:43 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com>: >> Every time somebody tries to point to an example of a “topic that is >> beyond the reach of science”, it seems to get knocked over eventually. > > Of course, an experiment trumps theory, always. > > > Marko in theory there is no difference between theory and practice in practice there is -- Q: What is purple and commutes? A: An Abelian grape.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 23:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87mvm3maep.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #110794 |
> Every time somebody tries to point to an example of a “topic that is > beyond the reach of science”, it seems to get knocked over eventually. Generate a sequence of "random" bits from your favorite physical source (radioactive decay, quantum entanglement, or whatever). Is the sequence really algorithmically random (like in Kolmogorov randomness)? This is scientifically unknowable. To check the randomness you have to solve the halting problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 00:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf80c4ec-9167-4d02-8fdb-893b7912f17f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #110820 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:57:41 PM UTC+12, Paul Rubin wrote: >> Every time somebody tries to point to an example of a “topic that is >> beyond the reach of science”, it seems to get knocked over eventually. > > Generate a sequence of "random" bits from your favorite physical source > (radioactive decay, quantum entanglement, or whatever). Is the sequence > really algorithmically random (like in Kolmogorov randomness)? This is > scientifically unknowable. The definition of “random” is “unknowable”. So all you are stating is a tautology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 00:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87inwrm8ro.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #110823 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> writes: > The definition of “random” is “unknowable”. So all you are stating is > a tautology. What? No. You read a bunch of bits out of the device and you want to know whether they are Kolmogorov-random (you can look up what that means if you're not familiar with it). Quantum theory says they are, but if it is true, there is no scientific way to confirm it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 00:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa17e724-ecfd-418c-8593-251ab9112ba6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #110826 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 7:32:55 PM UTC+12, Paul Rubin wrote: > Lawrence D’Oliveiro writes: >> The definition of “random” is “unknowable”. So all you are stating is >> a tautology. > > What? No. You read a bunch of bits out of the device and you want to > know whether they are Kolmogorov-random (you can look up what that means > if you're not familiar with it). Quantum theory says they are, but if > it is true, there is no scientific way to confirm it. Randomness is not something you can ever prove. Which is why it is the weak point of all encryption algorithms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 18:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <5774d7ee$0$1617$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #110823 |
On Thursday 30 June 2016 17:16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > The definition of “random” is “unknowable”. It really isn't. What Julius Caesar had for breakfast on the day after his 15th birthday is unknowable. To the best of our knowledge, the collapse of a quantum wave function is random. -- Steve
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 09:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.126.1467270804.2358.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #110794 |
On 30.06.2016 03:33, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > So you see, like it or not, we are drawn to the conclusion that there *was* indeed something before our particular Big Bang. That's linear like the Big Bang theorie. What about assuming something beyond our notion of time and space, unknown still?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 00:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11c11893-9d26-420d-a986-34fce70acb07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #110822 |
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 7:13:36 PM UTC+12, Andreas Röhler wrote: > On 30.06.2016 03:33, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> So you see, like it or not, we are drawn to the conclusion that there >> *was* indeed something before our particular Big Bang. > > That's linear like the Big Bang theorie. What about assuming something > beyond our notion of time and space, unknown still? M-theory? Branes? Multiverse? All part of the current scientific intellectual landscape.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 18:06 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <dtjr75Fsva0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #110770 |
Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > By the time the event horizon hits Tim at the speed of light, Tim will > have received all of our Universe's signals at an ever accelerating > frequency and increasing power. He will have seen the End of the World > before leaving it. I don't think that's right. From the point of view of an infalling observer, nothing particularly special happens at the event horizon. Being able to see into the future would count as rather special, I would have thought. -- Greg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 09:32 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <874m8bmbk1.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #110814 |
Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz>: > Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> By the time the event horizon hits Tim at the speed of light, Tim will >> have received all of our Universe's signals at an ever accelerating >> frequency and increasing power. He will have seen the End of the World >> before leaving it. > > I don't think that's right. From the point of view of an infalling > observer, nothing particularly special happens at the event horizon. > Being able to see into the future would count as rather special, I > would have thought. Yeah, you have a point: IF you could stand still, you would see light from behind as blue-shifted, precisely the flip side of gravitational redshifting for distant observers. However, if you were traveling on a free-fall geodesic, you would see no blueshift from light directly behind, because you and it would be in the same inertial reference frame. <URL: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26185/what-will-th e-universe-look-like-for-anyone-falling-into-a-black-hole> Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 09:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.109.1467208540.2358.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #110762 |
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016, at 05:35, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Although their perspectives are very different, neither is "more > right" than the other. I think usually the idea that there are "no privileged frames of reference" doesn't go so far as to include ones from which it is impossible to send information to the rest of. When it's impossible for observations to be transmitted back to Earth (or to anywhere else), you've crossed a line from science to philosophy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-26 11:15 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <dt8hk7FkgprU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #110431 |
Steven D'Aprano wrote: > China has just announced a new supercomputer that is so fast it can run an > infinite loop in 3.7 seconds. They're lying. It has to be NaN seconds. -- Greg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web