Oops, I said two things.
Er, bug report, the right-click menu is where my spell-check's suggestions were. So now I get a red underline telling me a word is not in the dictionary, but to correct it I have to just, try to type the correct spelling. Or google it I guess.
Turing completeness, let alone error correction, has not been shown for leptonic matter on its own.
Curious if you have a citation for this!
There are, as far as I can tell, no book-length biographies of Kolmogorov's life. The world is worse for it! His life was long, and his accomplishments innumerable and broad-reaching. An aspiring biographer could establish a career with such a book.
(There are a few different compilations of essays about Kolmogorov, but they're by fellow academics, and largely focus on his work rather than him.)
"Inkhaven" is already modifying the name of the campus "Lighthaven" (which is already a modification of "Lightcone"). Since you're still doing the "ink" part by writing, but not doing the haven part (by not being at Lighthaven) I'd recommend a different name.
May I suggest "Inkhalven"/"Inkhalfen"? Maybe the verb "Inkhalfing"?
Now that I think about it, it could be useful to have a timed sequence of posts that are just for discussing the book chapters, sort of like a read-along.
Is there any plan to post the IABIED online resources as a LW sequence? My impression is that some of the explanations are improved from the authors' previous writings, and it could be useful to get community discussion on more of the details.
FYI on your website it says "Applications are now closed" and links to an expression of interest form, but I assume that just hasn't been updated with the new application link yet?
It's not national, so I might just go with BloWriMo.
I enjoyed reading this post quite a bit, but the exact reason why eludes me. I think I've had or almost had a lot of these thoughts before, and this post clarified them for me.
I have a tendency to be constantly asking something like "but what is the real thing going on?". This is obviously very useful overall, but as in the post, it is sometimes also to useful to say "within this context, let's only reason as if this is all that's going on" and then try to improve my understanding of something that way. I think this would have significantly improved my experience of learning thermo and stat mech.
For anyone who's interested in going deeper on a formalism of thermo with no stat mech, I once found this niche book that seems to do exactly that: A First Course in the Mathematical Foundations of Thermodynamics. (It's published by Springer so it's probably legit, but I didn't actually get that far into it, so this isn't a recommendation per se.)