Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   screwlisp (screwtape@mastodon.sdf.org)'s status on Thursday, 26-Dec-2024 04:58:32 JST screwlisp

   in reply to

   @mostlypat
   I think for functional code (functions of functions), in my lisp moo thing I can do forward simulation, but simulating the whole world only works for a very small search space.

   In contrast, sitcalc with occlusion can search through lots and lots of sequences of logical actions to satisfy intents, but it can only really work with first order logic (no functions of functions). So I thought beliefs can be 1st order sitcalc, but the real simulated world can be higher order.

2. Embed this notice
   Evan Prodromou (evan@cosocial.ca)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2024 07:20:23 JST Evan Prodromou

   @amd @cwebber @bnewbold I don't know.

   I wish that Bluesky would publish an open, royalty-free patent license on AT so this wasn't a problem for anyone else in the space.

   In the open standards world, we typically only consider work from other open standards, specifically for this reason. So, basing a W3C spec on an IETF RFC.

   So my experience here is slim.

3. Embed this notice
   🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 06-Mar-2024 08:13:31 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   in reply to

   @LouisIngenthron

   > In none of those examples are you doing integer addition.
   The first two examples are collision, not addition. The third is procreation, not addition.

   I never said addition was collision. Addition is "the combination of two things into one".. 2 is not one and one seperately, it is only when you take one and **combine** it with another 1 that it becomes 2.

   The nature of how you "Combine" then is again open to definition. You can put them in the same basket or within some bounded space.

   In the case of antimatter I picked electrons because they are point-like when manifest, so two electrons can **never** collide. It is only when they are near proximity (within the same energy level and region) that they combine and annihilate.

   But again its all definitions. But it is important to note that addition is the combining of things, and is **not** the same as counting, which is an ordered set you are iterating through.

   As for integers, again just a play on definitions. If i am adding ducks, is a conjoined twin duck two ducks or one? What if it has two heads vs 4 legs and one head? Or do we count the atoms that make up a duck. Why is a glass of water some real number thing (the volume) and not a single integer "one blob of water".. afterall ducks can be of various sizes and configuration and made up of constituent parts, so why cant we treat water the same?

   Again the point here is all of this is you relying on arbitrary definitions to make any of this work. There is no "reality" to it and is very much a debatable "fact".

   But again if the fact that "1+1=2" is true or not isnt relevant. Because even if it is a concept thatis absolutely and objectively true, since we can (and are) disagreeing on that it is only your **opinion** that it is fact, it is my opinion it is not fact. One of us might be true but there is no way to prove which of us is true in an infallable way, ergo regardless of its underlying truth it is still an opinion that it is true.