All of TezlaKoil's Comments + Replies

In a topological space, defining

  1. X ∨ Y as X ∪ Y
  2. X ∧ Y as X ∩ Y
  3. X → Y as Int( X^c ∪ Y )
  4. ¬X as Int( X^c )

does yield a Heyting algebra. This means that the understanding (but not the explanation) of /u/cousin_it checks out: removing the border on each negation is the "right way".

Notice that under this interpretation X is always a subset of ¬¬X.:

  1. Int(X^c) is a subset of X^c; by definition of Int(-).
  2. Int(X^c)^c is a superset of X^c^c = X; since taking complements reverses containment.
  3. Int( Int(X^c)^c ) is a superset of Int(X) = X; since Int(-) pre
... (read more)
I see. Thanks for the explanation.

You can get a clearer-if-still-imperfect sense from contrasting upvotes on parallel,

I'm fairly certain that P(disagrees with blargtroll | disagrees with your proposal) >> P(agrees with blargtroll | disagrees with your proposal), simply because blargtroll's counterargument is weak and its followups reveal some anger management issues.

For example, I would downvote both your proposal and blargtroll's counterargument if I could - and by the Typical Mind heuristic so would everyone else :)

That said, I think you're right in that this would not have received sufficiently many downvotes to become invisible.

3[DEACTIVATED] Duncan Sabien7y
First time I've heard it referred to as a heuristic. +1 =P

Thanks for giving a name to this phenomenon.

Indeed, it would not surprise me if some people actually want hedge drift to occur. They don't actually try to prevent their claims from being misunderstood.

It's much worse. In my experience as an academic, most departments simply pre-hedge-drift their press releases. Science journalists don't - and are often not qualified to - read and comment on the actual papers, all they have to work with is the press release.

Yes, a new paper confirms this.

I mean nationalized, as in the distribution of tobacco products (imports, wholesale, retail) is handled by companies that may or may not have been private at some point, but are now property of the state.

What do you mean by nationalizing?

The weight of evidence best demonstrates that control measures have thus far been quite uniformly positive.

I see. The black market effects are well-documented, but I am not familiar with evidence which shows that control measures have any measurable effects on public health. Where could I find that data?

Dagon's points are very good. There's another aspect as well:

Tobacco import and distribution (and in some cases, production) are already nationalized in many countries, especially in the EU. National governments try to impose artificial scarcity (winding down operations, tax increases, fixed pricing), and this makes the statistics look better - officially monitored tobacco sales decrease.

Artificial scarcity cannot last: a black market of RYO tobacco, and home-made cigarettes of dubious origin is always ready to serve customer demands. In the end, the healt... (read more)

Australia has a track record of doing a better job of enforcing bans than other countries. It's a island.
that's not what nationalising means
True, but if it's less than the total market that existed before hand, that's still a public health gain It can be, but that's just not the best supported hypothesis. The weight of evidence best demonstrates that control measures have thus far been quite uniformly positive.

I bet if you phrase the question as "your brain is destroyed and recreated 5 minutes later", most people outside LW answer no. I guess this might be another instance of brain functions inactive vs lack of ability to have experiences.

What do "destroy" and "recreate" mean? I interpret them as meaning something like "disassemble" and "reassemble in the same configuration as before, with the same component parts" That's not how I interpret the descriptions of the destructive teleportation, uploading, and forking scenarios. The only arguments I can presently think of that really make me doubt my response to the "do you survive destructive uploading/teleportation/copying?" questions are more on the lines of the Ship of Theseus. My computer remains my computer if I turn it off and on again. "My files" can refer to specific instances, versions, copies, whatever, whether they're on "my computer" or copied to an external device. If my computer falls apart and is put back together again, it's still my computer. If my computer is taken apart, and an identical computer with my files on its hard drive is built (with different parts), it's a different computer. If my computer slowly has all its parts replaced, one at a time, I don't really know what I'd think; I want to say it's no longer the same computer at some point, but I don't know which point. Maybe when the hard drive is replaced, but that's a bad example because replacing individual chunks of atoms in the hard drive is a weird concept. Actually, I'd probably think of the new chunks as "the new chunks", and more or less treat it as portions of two separate disks acting as one. (And if files are modified, deleted, copied, etc, then they are modified, deleted, copied, etc, and this does not make it stop being "my computer".) So what does that mean for the brain? The brain changes a lot; does its component parts get replaced all that often? A huge portion of the cells in the body get replaced at varying rates; do they play into this at all? How would my conclusions change if the brain replaces its cells frequently and I was just that bad at understanding neurology? I'm not really sure about the answers to these. It's possible that the answers could c
Yes, I agree (except that I'm not sure whether most people outside LW would really answer no; for sure a lot would, but I don't have a strong intuition about whether it would be a majority). My point is just that even if sleep never turns off experiences altogether, the intuition people appeal to when saying "experience stops every night when you sleep" isn't actually dependent on that.

In row 8 of the table, P(D) should be replaced by P(~D).


Location-specific advice

Libgen is blocked by court order in the United Kingdom, but if you're a student, you can usually access it through Eduroam.

In a sterilized and sealed jar, jam made without sugar can last for years. Once you actually open the jar, you have about 7 days to eat it, and you better keep it refrigerated. You don't need the sugar for thickening - the pectin in the fruit thickens jam just fine.

However, if you don't add any sweetener, the result will be very sour.

Source: been making my own jam for years, had plenty of time to experiment.

So did you actually make jam without sugar and then stored it for years before eating it?

In my experience, acid reflux can cause similar sensations.

I'm not sure that my paradox even requires the proof system to prove it's own consistency.

Your argument requires the proof system to prove it's own consistency. As we discussed before, your argument relies on the assumption that the implication

If "φ is provable" then "φ"
Provable(#φ) → φ 

is available for all φ. If this were the case, your theory would prove itself consistent. Why? Because you could take the contrapositive

If "φ is false" then "φ is not provable"
¬φ → ¬Provable(#φ) 

and substitute "0=1"... (read more)

0 is not equal to 1, so it's not inconsistent. I don't understand what you are trying to say with that. It would be really silly for a system not to believe it was consistent. And, if it were true, it would also apply to the mathematicians making such statements. The mathematicians are assuming it's true, and it is obviously true, so I don't see why a proof system should not have it. In any case I don't see how my system requires proving "x is provable implies x". It searches through proofs in a totally unspecified proof system. It then proves the standard halting problem on a copy of itself, and shows that it will never halt. It then returns false, causing a paradox. Are saying that it's impossible to prove the halting problem? So if something is not provable in a theory, that proves it is consistent? I did read your link but I don't understand most of it.

It is not that these statements are "not generally valid"

The intended meaning of valid in my post is "valid step in a proof" in the given formal system. I reworded the offending section.

Obviously such statements will be true if H's axiom system is true, and in that sense they are always valid.

Yes, and one also has to be careful with the use of the word "true". There are models in which the axioms are true, but which contain counterexamples to Provable(#φ) → φ.

Now here is the weird and confusing part. If the above is a valid proof, then H will eventually find it. It searches all proofs, remember?

Fortunately, H will never find your argument because it is not a correct proof. You rely on hidden assumptions of the following form (given informally and symbolically):

 If φ is provable, then φ holds.
 Provable(#φ) → φ

where #φ denotes the Gödel number of the proposition φ.

Statements of these form are generally not provable. This phenomenon is known as Löb's theorem - featured in Main back in 2008.

You use these inva... (read more)

I'm very confused. Of course if φ is provable then it's true. That's the whole point of using proofs.
It is not that these statements are "not generally valid", but that they are not included within the axiom system used by H. If we attempt to include them, there will be a new statement of the same kind which is not included. Obviously such statements will be true if H's axiom system is true, and in that sense they are always valid.

From Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names:

anything someone tells you is their name is — by definition — an appropriate identifier for them.

There should be a list of false things people coming from common law jurisdictions believe about how choice of identity works on the rest of the globe.

I'm not sure what's intended by "appropriate" there-- it might not be so much a claim about the law as a claim that it's a name the person wants to use and you shouldn't argue with them about it. Even then, impersonation is an issue..

Should this be surprising? I briefly worked at a French school in Hungary: the guy who taught Spanish was Mexican, the girl who taught English was American, and so on. A Korean living in Guatemala still needs to learn English.

looked up monotone voice on google, and found that it has a positive, redeeming side – attractiveness.

My friends tell me that my face is pretty scarred. Research shows that facial scars are attractive. By the word scar, researchers mean healed cut. My friends mean acne hole.

Not all monotone voices are created equal. I'd be really surprised if "autistic" monotone and a "high-status" monotone would refer to the same thing.

Indeed, the source article suggested it was the combination of reduced pitch variation, increased pitch, and increased volume variation by high-status speakers. Extremely reduced pitch variation (ie true monotone) may be well beyond the typical statistical range that listeners perceive as high-status. Moreover, the original article suggested that listeners didn't use pitch variation as a cue to status (even though speakers varied on this dimension depending on the status manipulation).

I believe that an ultrafinitist arithmetic would still be incomplete. By that I mean that classical mathematics could prove that a sufficiently powerful ultrafinitist arithmetic is necessarily incomplete. The exact definition of "sufficiently powerful", and more importantly, the exact definition of "ultrafinitistic" would require attention. I'm not aware of any such result or on-going investigation.

The possibility of an ultrafinitist proof of Gödel's theorem is a different question. For some definition of "ultrafinitistic", ev... (read more)

Sure, that's exactly what we have to do, on pain of inconsistency. We have to disallow representation schemas powerful enough to internalise the Berry paradox, so that "the smallest number not definable in less than 11 words" is not a valid representation. Cf. the various set theories, where we disallow comprehension schemas strong enough to internalise Russell's paradox, so that "the set of all sets that don't contain themselves" is not a valid comprehension.

Nelson thought that, similarly to how we reject "the smallest number not... (read more)

Mainly in the city of Edinburgh, HW campus and the Lothians. It worked well inside college buildings with non-trivial layouts as well.

Important question: do you usually travel by car? I can't drive, so my main methods of transportation were public transport and walking.

Thanks! If still possible, I'd like to ask the following:

  • Who performed the insertion procedure? How long does it take to heal?

  • An N52 is very strong. Did you experience any unexpected negative side-effects while handling everyday objects (weight training, smartphones, et c.)?

  • Apart from the ring, have you tried achieving the same thing externally (i.e. without an implant)? Do you think it would be possible to "come close"?

him: "A body artist. It took about 3 weeks to close. Not sure on internal healing. A month, maybe. Not really any issues. It stings a bit if you hold something too long. Pinches the skin between the object and the magnet. You could try supergluing one to the side of the fingertip."

Is such a long answer suitable in OT? If not, where should I move it?

tl;dr Naive ultrafinitism is based on real observations, but its proposals are a bit absurd. Modern ultrafinitism has close ties with computation. Paradoxically, taking ultrafinitism seriously has led to non-trivial developments in classical (usual) mathematics. Finally: ultrafinitism would probably be able to interpret all of classical mathematics in some way, but the details would be rather messy.

1 Naive ultrafinitism

1.1. There are many different ways of representing (writing down) math... (read more)

Anywhere is better than nowhere. I think this is sufficiently good to go directly to Main article, but generally the safe option is to publish a Discussion article (which in case of success can be later moved to Main). I would really like seeing more articles like this on LW -- articles written by people who deeply understand what they write about. (Preferably with more examples, because this was difficult to follow without clicking the hyperlinks. But that may be just my personal preference.) So, here are the options: * leave it here; (the easiest) * repost as an article; (still very easy) * rewrite as a more detailed article or series of articles (difficult)
What is LNST? Edit: Nevermind, saw the footnote.
Can't the set of effectively representable numbers be inductive if we decide that "the smallest number not effectively representable" does not effectively represent a number? "The smallest positive integer not definable in under twelve words" isn't an effective representation of a number any more than "The number I'm thinking of" or "Potato potato potato potato potato" are.
Thank you for this insightful and comprehensive reply! I have a follow-up question: Would ultrafinitist arithmetic still be incomplete due to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem?

If you set down to meditate, instead of using a timer you can set the goal of meditating for 20 minutes. That skill is trainable and with time you can get +1/-1.

Interesting. I don't meditate, but I'll try this in other contexts (probably in tasks related to giving talks) and see how my time sense improves.

In my case, the answer is simple: tutoring, teaching and lecturing. The feedback of watches and timers is completely inadequate: I can't "profile", I can't adjust my tempo in real time, et c.

Not to say that I prefer to have this information subconsciously. The information from the compass anklet was far more useful (and efficient) than glancing at my smartphone's compass every second would have been.

I can contact him and see if he can comment here if you are interested

I would be very interested in hearing about his experience, especially since I'd love to replicate something like this externally.

Him: Airports would be an issue, but it's easy to prove the magnets are there and be on your way. I had a single N52 grade 3mmx1mm disk magnet in the 3rd finger of my left hand. As far as MRI's i was going to have a medical bracelet made, directing the doctor to a note that says "magnetic implants in fingers, please remove if MRI is necessary" or if I was going in myself, I'd just tell them. Then I'd keep the magnets and have them re-implanted later. And I saw the guy with the ring. The sensation is nothing compared to an implant into the somatosensory nerve cluster. me: Can you say more about what it felt like to have it? him: That would be like describing blue to a blind person. me: You still haven't replaced it right? So what does it feel like to not have it now? him: I've pretty much gone back to normal. It's been over a year. I still need to find a viable coating. What else would you like to ask him about?

The skills lingered, and for some amount of time, I was able to "feel" where the compass would be pointing in many places I visited while wearing the anklet.

From memory, I'm still able to tell the general direction of the magnetic north in many places.

I think the pre-assembled NorthPaw is available for $199 + shipping.

I have tried:

  • Wearing a vibrating compass anklet for a week. It improved my navigational skills tremendously. I have low income, but I would definitely buy one if I could afford it.

  • Listening to a 60 bpm metronome on a Bluetooth earpiece for a week (excluding showers). I got used to the sound relatively quickly, but I most definitely did not acquire an absolute sense of time. However, I noticed that during boring activities such as filling out paperwork, the ticking itself seems to slow down.

I will try:

  • Wearing an Oculus Rift that shows the Fourier
... (read more)
I bought a NorthPaw last year but got very little out of it. I wondered if perhaps my local environment is simply not navigationally challenging enough; what sort of place were you using your haptic compass?
I wonder: after sufficient adaptation to a rate-of-time sense, could useful mental effects be produced by adjusting the scale?
I think time sense is best developed via setting intention. If you set down to meditate, instead of using a timer you can set the goal of meditating for 20 minutes. That skill is trainable and with time you can get +1/-1. It would also be interesting to couple on of those sleep stage based alarm clocks with a query for a guess of the current time when you awake.
I can understand the compass part, it can be very useful and save your life onetime, but time-sense? For what the heck you might need this? In peoples world people wear watches or have timers on their smartphones, and in the world there's no people there's no time
Navigo will cost $21 see:
Did you find the navigational skills lingered when you were in the same places (i.e. if you wore it around campus, you would then have a good map of campus) or did the improvement in skill disappear when you stopped wearing it?
I would love to buy an already assembled anklet or belt vibrating compass that can fit both a child and adult for <$200.

The most well known and simple example is an implanted magnet, which would alert you to magnetic fields (the trade-off being that you could never have an MRI).

Can't we achieve the same objective by wearing a magnet ring or a magnet bracelet, without the serious downsides of having an implant?

In related news - I ordered some magnetic rings. They arrived today. So far; no superpowers, however they are entertaining me. its quite comfortable to play with them, I suspect they would be good for someone with an ADD/ADHD/Tourettes type need to fidget as a focussed outlet for the energy. I suspect that having them outside my skin will mean they are nowhere near as sensitive as internal magnets. So far I can pick up metal objects in funny ways, and don't have any electric sense. Will post again soon with updates. Also so far my technology has no problems with them. My phone has a sweet spot to know if the lid is closed, but I have yet to have big problems with that.
I believe that having the magnet closer to your nerves gives you more sensation. the ability to sense if wires are live; the ability to feel the hum of a microwave or a laptop charger. I know of someone who had one which was getting infected so he removed it; he described it as "like being blind" to be without it. (I can contact him and see if he can comment here if you are interested)
Are there any rings or bracelet for that on the market?

Would you consider a Wikipedia brain implant to be a transhumanist modification? After all, ordinary humans can query Wikipedia too!

That's a weird way of putting it. Would I consider an implant which consists of a large chunk of memory with some processing and an efficient neural interface to be transhumanist? Yes, of course. It will give a lot of useful abilities and just filling it with Wikipedia looks like a waste of potential. I don't think trivializing transhumanism to minor cosmetics is a useful approach. Artificial nails make better screwdrivers than natural nails, so is that also a transhumanist modification?

2. A multitude of models

As a general rule, consistent theories have multiple models. Models have more consequences than the theories they model: for example, our model of the example system proves that there are only 2 men, even though this does not follow from the axioms. A sentence follows from the axioms only if it is satisfied in every possible model of S. ^4

Even the axiomatic theory of natural number arithmetic, which we would think is absolute, has multiple models. Mathematicians have agreed on a standard model (the so-called set of natural numbers),... (read more)

You should definitely post it as a top-level post in Main.
Got really much me thinking. Why are we regarding non-standard natural numbers as "junk"? I guess the identification of standard natural number as the simplest construciton that is a natural number system. The thing is a know a perfectly legimate construction for a number that is non-standard and not deliberately a "wrench in the machinery". The surreal number {1,2,3,4...|}=ω I have sometimes seen characterised as a integer and it's construction is of the same shape as other integers with lower birthdays (althought they use finite sets, ω is the first to use infinite sets). The hydra problem seems natural as you can't have ω-(n1) with finite n that reaches 0, and in fact ω-(n1) is still bigger than any finite number. I can also see how the successor of ω is ω+1 which I guess is the property that successor and addition play nice together. When geometry was axiomatised it was discovered that there are euclid and non-euclid geometries. They were not called non-standard geometries despite them getting way less attention. In general euclid and non-euclid geometries share some properties (those that stem from aximo not regarding parallel lines) but have different properties in general (ie different parallizaiton rules lead to genuinely different systems). Coudn't it just be that we are using a way too general system where the formal meaning of a integer captures more entities that we have in mind when we are really interested only in certain kinds of natural numbers? That is ω might be a integer as the axioms read out but when people say integers they don't mean entities like ω (like when people say space they usually don't mean minowskian spaces althought those are spaces too). I do like the rigour that when a mathematician lays out a set of axioms he can know whether all cases are covered without being able to come up with any "viable" exception to them. That is any kind of arithmetic thing that hinges on the differences of finite and infinite numbers is already amb
Thanks for these posts (upvoted both). LW needs more of this.

First of all, let me issue a warning: model-theoretic truth is a mathematical notion, which (a priori) doesn't have anything to do with the real-world sense of truth!

A short introduction to model theory follows. It is not LW quality, but hopefully it's good enough to answer some questions about MrMind's post. Prerequisites: merely some familiarity with formal reasoning, but I guess knowing the Mental Concepts of Model Theory doesn't hurt.

The 1st part is the general introduction to model theory, the examples about non-standard models are in the 2nd and 3rd ... (read more)

2. A multitude of models

As a general rule, consistent theories have multiple models. Models have more consequences than the theories they model: for example, our model of the example system proves that there are only 2 men, even though this does not follow from the axioms. A sentence follows from the axioms only if it is satisfied in every possible model of S. ^4

Even the axiomatic theory of natural number arithmetic, which we would think is absolute, has multiple models. Mathematicians have agreed on a standard model (the so-called set of natural numbers),... (read more)

Location and age cohort based education is designed for the center of the bell curve at the expense of the tails in about every way imaginable. It's a bad fit socially, because large discrepancies in intelligence makes for difficulty in relating. It's crippling intellectually, because beyond being bored to tears, you're not learning how to control and drive yourself toward goals, which is the fundamental skill to be developed in your youth.

I went to an elementary school for gifted children, so all of my classmates had above-average intelligence, and we ... (read more)

Osho's right hand did run the biggest bioattack on the US at the time. I don't want to live in a world where when someone doesn't like how an election is going to go they try to poison a significant portion of the electorate to keep them at home.

As far as I know, most other gurus teaching similar principles were not involved with bioterrorism. Do you think there might be a causal relationship between preaching you are not helpless with your feelings and committing bioattacks?

That particular idea has been widely explored in the literature. E.g. Fajnzylber does it in Inequality and violent crime, finding a significant correlation of 0.54 between income inequality and log of homicide rate. This is pretty strong by social science standards. The correlation with other types of crime is much lower.

Curiously, If you restrict to Europe, the correlation is negative, but it is positive if you restrict to East and South Asia, which has Gini coefficients and murder rates comparable to European countries.