Xmd5a · HackerTrans

Xmd5a

324 karmajoined 2 năm trước

comments

Hôm kiadiscuss

I'm sorry you felt this way and the small speck on the mirror surface outgrew the rest. I mean you didn't puzzle over what I said. Are you not interested in learning about similar frameworks by other people? Don't you want to stitch yourself into a bigger world? I met amazing people that taught me a lot about myself.

> [her] - 25/07/2026 04:53 > I love you too [me] and I’m so glad you’re in my life!

> [him] — 25/07/2026 23:51 > Enjoy 25th ^_^

I know you are suspicious enough that eventually you'll doubt yourself and your initial reaction, but I'm also ready to bet that the reaction is so visceral you'll be reticent to follow up directly with me, so in this case, look up "recursive coherence" you'll find plenty of adjacent theories, in various styles, domains and degrees of rigor.

Yours is remarkably devoid of any ontological claim and tries to stay strictly in the domain of mathematics, which is not frequent. Others approach it in terms of physics, ecology, sociology and even psychology and personal development. Don't discard them too quickly for these reasons. Unusual ideas often go hand in hand with certain thought paths that form a life path and in the process give shape to personality. The sobriety of your framework is inversely proportional to how much you know it tells about yourself. This is a quality! The sobriety. And it came at a cost – if only for the time spent developing it in isolation. Not anyone does this.

As for the feeling of being diagnosed, every man has in his back a fish for other men to witness. It becomes visible when the ideas he articulates inform others of the paths he followed to reach them. Conservation of energy implies path insensitivity and thus a certain class of paths, a type. A type of man.

I'm a Zipf nut. I use this derogatory statement for myself as a measure of sanity. The Zipf distribution is spectacularly ambiguous, and I can name several well-respected and established scholars that I consider to be Zipf nuts too. But you don't need to look further than Zipf himself to find the first specimen. He was obsessed with his discovery, he kept finding it everywhere because it's everywhere. And this could only fuel the obsession, yes reality gets as crazy as this. It's because he was challenged this way and for all the time he sunk into this subject that I think he wrote a paper titled "The repetition of words, time-perspective, and semantic balance", and suggested to use his findings to study "personality variants".

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=66641

4 ngày trướcdiscuss

https://github.com/JGPTech/EchoKey

Hey I think know what you're attempting to do here. I ... suspect you may be some kind of trisector (https://www.ufv.ca/media/faculty/gregschlitt/information/Wha...). A very successful one at that! Please don't be offended by the snarky remarks in this PDF nor by the comparison itself. I think I'm a kind of trisector myself, except that I'm more interested in trisectors themselves than in whatever is being trisected. That is in fact the only reason I think I understand what EchoKey is about.

You're not the only person I've seen pursuing a project like this. We're living through strange times in which people independently arrive at theories of composition, that quite don't fit together because you can compose as hard as you want, the gap between the real and the symbolic is conserved and is free to vary from one individual's imagination to another. At least this is my take. Composition may be a larger concept than applied categoricians tend to assume, and one question that could be asked in EchoKey is: can composition be expressed symbolically in a closed form, or is it essentially semiotic, i.e. it can't stabilize on a definition because it has to be iteratively revised?

The people I have in mind and that I think we're part of all have a certain definition, a specific theory of the same thing that is somehow always incomplete, often isolating in that it's a kind of rock we push with us with the perspective however diffuse of reaching some place in the relational or even affective domain. I'm not sure how to put it. My latest idea is "energy as the epistemic invariant of theoretical extension". I don't think we'll be able to figure out anything without what we end up with also amounting to composing with each other, because deep down energy is what we observe to remain when decomposable objects are routed through decomposable processes that once rerouted and recomposed preserve the same thing: the intactness of being as that which never changes through the processes it takes part in, and which allows us to stitch, without gaps or overlaps, the ever-extensible fabric of the world as the frontier containing all processes.

Is this realizable? Or just a dream? I'm not sure, it's a beautiful reality. Reality, not idea, what we are, not what we think. I'm hopeful this can happen and if I'm not mistaken you and I may be the only two people in this thread who understand what we're talking about—until some third person shows up, maybe? If so, then it's quite remarkable.

P.S.: what's the link between the Boltzmann generators papers and your pipeline? Why is energy involved?

> Our approach combines augmented coupling flows with graph neural networks to exploit local environments, enabling energy-based training and rapid inference.

Does this relate to the Jacobian conjecture?

6 ngày trướcdiscuss

The link is between numbers and words. Both can be decomposed into primitive components: primes and lyndon words (combinatorics). The Zipf distribution takes this shape when the vocabulary is infinite:

    P(r)=r^-s / Zeta(s)  with s > 1

Replace r^-s with (r + a)^-s, i.e. move onto Mandelbrot's rank-shifted model of Zipf's law and Riemann's Zeta function becomes Hurwitz Zeta function (ZetaHurwitz(s,a+1) with the ranks starting at 1).

Zipf law != Zipf distribution, still this is intriguing.

Integers and Prime Numbers: Deriving Zipf's Law (https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12773)

> In a prime number decomposition of integers in a given set, the occurrence frequencies of prime numbers are shown to satisfy a general forms of Zipf's law.

The same holds for Lyndon words decomposition of random strings to a certain extent.

7 ngày trướcdiscuss

would.jpg

The heat made me realize I was part of Team JUL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKQIp4WDD4Y

    Ça fait longtemps que j'avais pas sorti Maria
    Elle voudrait que j'y passe la bague à la manita
    J'ai loué la 458 Italia
    Moi, j'suis comme maman, des fois, j'écoute Dalida

8 ngày trướcdiscuss

flipping > to >= works quite often though!

8 ngày trướcdiscuss

yes and if you want to code a little swimmer that explores program-space, you'll find there too!

8 ngày trướcdiscuss

> The two are still on good terms, writing papers together.

Why are you framing this like this? Do mathematician take these kind of things personally?

9 ngày trướcdiscuss

This is called Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction

https://www.pssdnetwork.org/

https://www.reddit.com/r/PSSD/

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=pssd...

SSRIs are also the most prescribed drugs to cure premature ejaculation.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=ssri...

9 ngày trướcdiscuss

I haven't had a proper orgasm in more than a decade. I've been off SSRIs for 5 years.

9 ngày trướcdiscuss

It's obviously body-integrated cryptography or your whole activity – own your data. With markets that retrospectively evaluate what's it's worth.

9 ngày trướcdiscuss

Ok, now do SSRIs.

9 ngày trướcdiscuss

What is the relationship between Riemann zeta function and Zipf's law? And between words and primes?

9 ngày trướcdiscuss

> they get inundated with kooky proofs from amateurs

Source?

16 ngày trướcdiscuss

> Why is this conserved? Because ∇ᵤ(Tᵘᵥξᵥ) = (∇ᵤ Tᵘᵥ)ξᵥ + Tᵘᵥ(∇ᵤ ξᵥ).

Interesting.

> This is an example of a topic that unstructured self study would likely skip.

I'm not studying physics – could you take a look at some unstructured reflexions I wrote a couple weeks ago?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48699125

20 ngày trướcdiscuss

Rust is a stripper

21 ngày trướcdiscuss

Such is the madman of experience; he is commonly a reasoner, frequently a successful reasoner. Doubtless he could be vanquished in mere reason, and the case against him put logically. But it can be put much more precisely in more general and even aesthetic terms. He is in the clean and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful point. He is without healthy hesitation and healthy complexity. Now, as I explain in the introduction, I have determined in these early chapters to give not so much a diagram of a doctrine as some pictures of a point of view. And I have described at length my vision of the maniac for this reason: that just as I am affected by the maniac, so I am affected by most modern thinkers. That unmistakable mood or note that I hear from Hanwell, I hear also from half the chairs of science and seats of learning to-day; and most of the mad doctors are mad doctors in more senses than one. They all have exactly that combination we have noted: the combination of an expansive and exhaustive reason with a contracted common sense. They are universal only in the sense that they take one thin explanation and carry it very far. But a pattern can stretch for ever and still be a small pattern. They see a chess-board white on black, and if the universe is paved with it, it is still white on black. Like the lunatic, they cannot alter their standpoint; they cannot make a mental effort and suddenly see it black on white.

Take first the more obvious case of materialism. As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality of the madman's argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and the sense of it leaving everything out. Contemplate some able and sincere materialist, as, for instance, Mr. McCabe, and you will have exactly this unique sensation. He understands everything, and everything does not seem worth understanding. His cosmos may be complete in every rivet and cog-wheel, but still his cosmos is smaller than our world. Somehow his scheme, like the lucid scheme of the madman, seems unconscious of the alien energies and the large indifference of the earth; it is not thinking of the real things of the earth, of fighting peoples or proud mothers, or first love or fear upon the sea. The earth is so very large, and the cosmos is so very small. The cosmos is about the smallest hole that a man can hide his head in.

It must be understood that I am not now discussing the relation of these creeds to truth; but, for the present, solely their relation to health. Later in the argument I hope to attack the question of objective verity; here I speak only of a phenomenon of psychology. I do not for the present attempt to prove to Haeckel that materialism is untrue, any more than I attempted to prove to the man who thought he was Christ that he was labouring under an error. I merely remark here on the fact that both cases have the same kind of completeness and the same kind of incompleteness. You can explain a man's detention at Hanwell by an indifferent public by saying that it is the crucifixion of a god of whom the world is not worthy. The explanation does explain. Similarly you may explain the order in the universe by saying that all things, even the souls of men, are leaves inevitably unfolding on an utterly unconscious tree -- the blind destiny of matter. The explanation does explain, though not, of course, so completely as the madman's. But the point here is that the normal human mind not only objects to both, but feels to both the same objection. Its approximate statement is that if the man in Hanwell is the real God, he is not much of a god. And, similarly, if the cosmos of the materialist is the real cosmos, it is not much of a cosmos. The thing has shrunk. The deity is less divine than many men; and (according to Haeckel) the whole of life is something much more grey, narrow, and trivial than many separate aspects of it. The parts seem greater than the whole.

--

Chesterton - Orthodoxy, ch. II, The Maniac

https://freddoso.com//courses/439/orthodoxy2-3.htm

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16079840/

21 ngày trướcdiscuss

There is no gendarmerie in Paris.

23 ngày trướcdiscuss

> create a reverse payment instead of voiding a charge

I think I know the reason to this one. Maybe. Because the money is already gone! There are no rollbacks in the banking system only "counter"-transactions.

26 ngày trướcdiscuss

Well, you can repeat this argument and apply it to Galilean invariance. Start with a boost induced by changing inertial frame whose relative velocity is perpendicular to the original velocity vector and you end up with the same additive requirement above. Allow the relative velocity of the new frame to be in any direction and you get the same kind of affine relationship I alluded to when I mentioned non-orthogonal basis.

    v -> v + u
    without u ⟂ v
    |v+u|^2 = |v|^2  +  2 v•u  +  |u|^2
    K(v+u) = 1/2 m|v|^2  +  m v•u  +  1/2 m |u|^2

With the difference

    K(v+u) - K(v) = m v•u + 1/2 m|u|^2

that is traditionally derived with a Lagrangian approach to the problem.

Note that it also holds for polar coordinates (radial vs tangential components), complex coordinates, rotation matrices (RᵀR = I => (Rv)ᵀ(Rv) = vᵀv), etc...

> it doesn't hold relativistically

I understand that you allude to Einstein's theory –and I agree–, however it seems you also point at reality as the ultimate arbitrator as to what energy is exactly – and that's why you referred to the most accurate theory we have. Not false either, but this oversteps the idea that we can only make sense of energy as a measurable conserved quantity through the apparatus of our theories, that, in order to give a complete account of reality, must be compositional with respect to how the phenomena but also the mathematical tools combine, can be decomposed and recombined into something else without losing that invariant in the process.

Under this view, energy is something that emerges (not the thing itself, its invariance) under some kind of description closure. From within our theories, energy is invariant not just because the physical reality is. They are invariant also because the different perspectives they can shed on a phenomenon form a closure within a conversion graph. You can convert from cartesian to polar and back to cartesian coordinates and you will find the exact same conserved quantity. or from one inertial frame to another. This closure is what constitutes the domain of a theory: a graph that describes how to convert one perspective into another in order to make sense of another conversion graph, telling us how to convert from one energy type to the next (kinetic energy to position as potential energy in classical mechanics). You can't have one without having the other.

Conservation of energy is also conservation of the means of description, since energy is a locally exhaustive account of reality. And these local pieces must be glued additively otherwise there are holes or redundancy in the resulting composition since the invariance we call energy is inseparable from the closure of the transformations under which the theory identifies it.

I know close to nothing about relativity, but from the principles I sketched, I expect that I can shift rotation into a relativistic context and use the same additivity argument as above, and that the relationship between the energy we have from Newtonian mechanics and the one we gain in this new setting will be additive too. And this is what we have:

    Euclidean rotation becomes hyperbolic rotation
    Euclidean norm becomes Minkowski norm
    The energy-momentum invariant replaces kinetic energy taken in isolation
    Newton reappears as a term in the expansion

And in the equations 1/2 mv² composes with the rest via addition:

    E = γmc² = mc² + 1/2 mv² + 3/8 mv⁴/c² + ...
    S_rel = ∫ [ -mc² + 1/2 mv² + 1/8 mv⁴/c² + ... ] dt

How could it be any different? New energy and a new theory can only come as additive corrections to a previous account of energy if we want to conserve what it already explains. And under this new light any observed deviation from an old theory (for instance the precession of the perihelion of Mercury) naturally appears as an additive deviation from the original action functional (S_new = S_old + ΔS).

In fact, I think you can you can see the emergence of action, stationarity, and energy conservation just from a compositional bridge between two theories, T1 extending T0 with:

    - two functors between the theories:
      I: T0 -> T1
      R: T1 -> T0
    - that compose into an identity:
      R ∘ I = Id_T0

Indeed, if T1 can offer another way to decompose a phenomenon h,

    I(h) = b ∘ a

and we want to be able to recover T0 from the segments, not just globally once recomposed (i.e. there is no holes in our functorial bridge), then

   R(b ∘ a) = R(b) ∘ R(a) must hold too

And the only way to translate this into a composition-preserving scalar account is via addition:

   Z(b ∘ a) = Z(b) + Z(a).

Once this additive balance of composable conversions between T0 and T1 is made continuous (by the requirement that the bridge has no holes), you have action. Stationarity appears as the stability of internal gluing points ("∘" in R(b ∘ a) = R(b) ∘ R(a)), and energy follows from invariance with respect to temporal translation.

Energy as the Epistemic Invariant of Theoretical Extension. Mmmhh.

28 ngày trướcdiscuss

> It is truly no wonder that so much of society is so fundamentally fucking stupid

It's not. You got baited into thinking this is the case.

> are so full of obviously false bullshit.

Well, maybe what's less obvious is that there are a lot more people gawking at how stupid other people can be than fools falling for the bullshit you call out.