What precisely is the complaint the actual author is making wrt temporal logic? Surely it is more than the assertion that there is no such canonical one?
What I need is a (rigorous) derivation of the lumped-element model as some reasonable limit of Maxwell’s equations. Appropriate references dearly and desperately requested.
This woman has an issue with her bank, and not her government.
I expect what has happened is that she had solicited funds for her campaign and received unusual flows of money, considering she resides in Mexico, to her account which then triggered an issue with her bank.
I know I’m old-fashioned, but I’d actually like noon to be where the sun is highest in the sky somewhere in the timezone and I’m totally okay if it’s the western edge for all the lovers of DST.
Unfortunately it’s easy to say something is happening due to certain forces, but much harder to propose solutions. Here, Dalio provides no such advice.
The world ought to come together in a way to collectively navigate a US-exit. That is the only solution I can see. It will not be palatable to Trump, who will probably want Europe, China, and India to become isolationist themselves.
All of this is seems admirable, but it reveals the supreme naïvety of an intellect that can advocate for “personal liberty” and “free markets” yet not realize that each can impede the other in certain ways, and so it is necessary to study and debate the dynamics and structure of this interaction.
I think two primary things, which are connected. First, Kevin Buzzard, a “real” mathematician (as he self-identifies), promoted computer formalization of research mathematics with the Xena project, and second when looking for tools he latched onto Lean because he felt it more ergonomic. [1]
He later discovered why Coq, Isabelle/HOL, and other tools did things in certain ways [2] (which were more “natural” to computer scientists) but by then his advocacy and inertia (the growing, curated MathLib) cemented Lean as the tool mathematicians tried first and sort of stuck with.
Let’s face it, if you guys pick up steam, you’ll be doing your own hardware. It’ll be amazing that if that happens, you’ll also sell that hardware so that other Oxides can bloom, but you won’t and your excuse will be economic.
The problem is none of these hardware vendors have enough customers for them to be open with their specs. Even if they did, the majority of their customers would not have the expertise that you’ve hired for to competently take advantage of that interface. Instead, they’ll lob some HAL code at the customer, and if their orders are big enough, give them support. Internally, these hardware vendors will have multiple sourcetrees for each customer, and one customer’s fix will not be reflected in anothers for fear that it’ll break whatever the other customer is doing with it.
:(
That said, I hope you guys are supremely successful and spark a change in culture.
That’s the main thing that Tao identifies that Lean enables, collaboration where Lean does the work of checking the output of the collaborator, thus becoming a force multiplier. There’s still the issue of how the proof should be organized, how it should be factored into various implications, and here, like in the Linux kernel, contributors with seniority referee the process, as Tao did with his “experiment”.
I can’t decode French elitism.