mathisfun123

> Imagine if someone suggested that cars existed for the sake of competition

are the mathematicians the cars here? what are you even saying? the question is whether elite mathematicians do the work they do primarily for competition and compensation or for the love of the field. now ask yourself: do F1 drivers do it primarily for the love of the sport or for the money?

> delivery drivers

people getting scooped by OAI are not the "delivery drivers" of the math world.

> You clearly live in a world you don't understand.

i have a phd in pure math. you sure i'm the one that doesn't understand this world?

> Mathematics isn't about "winning competitions".

yea that's why there are no named prizes awarded to mathematicians which come with hundreds of thousands of dollar in prize money....

lol do you people actually live in this world?

i have no idea what this means

Since you're such a philosopher apparently what's your response then

> You must have a very weak understanding on this topic

i work on the codegen for a C compiler i'm pretty sure my understanding is better than yours <shrug>

EDIT: and also you've clearly never read that article

> One of the key attributes of a low-level language is that programmers can easily understand how the language’s abstract machine maps to the underlying physical machine

so you did exactly imply "C is a low level language"

This is a myth https://queue.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3212477.3212479

the question is about whether you understand in the slightest the output of the tool. does the determinism of the compiler somehow imbue you with a better understanding of the assembly it generates?

how do you feel about his analogy

> Here's a new rule just for you: don't use compilers for any of your kernel submissions.

> Because if you can't show that you really understand what the machine is actually doing by writing your code in assembler, then I don't want to see your code contribution. You clearly aren't competent if you can't write it that way.

greatly exaggerated as indicated by linus' own feelings

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=whTs09_ozN+e09GU68N1wPP56...

why?

> Unhinged and honestly nauseating take

Whenever someone tries to play white knight like this I ask my two standard questions:

1. Do you have a PhD?

2. Is your PhD in a theory area (math, mathematical physics, economic theory, TCS)?

I have yet to meet a white knight that doesn't fail one or both of these questions.

> The whole situation seems completely grounded in that mathematicians are greedy for status and clout trying to write their name on new discoveries in blood and publish as many papers as possible

You're gonna get downvoted but this is absolutely true. People who've never been in real professional academia don't understand but this is exactly what most very successful academics are like.

> When you remove this greed and status seeking you might actually end up with a healthy environment.

Nah I think you're just gonna have collapse because you've removed all incentive.

I don't disagree but I don't think that matters here where we're debating whether there's a skill to be learned and you compared to something else which is not deterministic.

> Yes, but you can learn the actual techniques that let you make a straight cut 100% of the time

no you can't? not by hand? not without a jig?

[flagged]

It's amazing how thick these dudes are <shrug>

[flagged]

[flagged]

I don't know what you're implying - I asked a genuine question: what is impressive about that syntax.

You're failing to apply de Morgan's laws correctly:

(X and Y) => Z

<=>

~Z => (~X or ~Y)

Sorry I need you to state your axioms here because as I stated above, "standard" semantical interpretation of the word "certain" implies you should be betting lots of money. Since you're not, I have to conclude you have some goofy unorthodox semantical interpretation.

> Friendly reminder that if you look at population numbers

i think it's funny that you tried to cast doubt but couldn't even do that because you lead with the glaring flaw in your reasoning instead of your rhetorical point. congrats.

> since that seems to be the bar they are setting for others

this is a very simple exercise in propositional logic (simple enough that i don't need to write a lean proof):

"if you are certain then you should bet"

<=>

"if you're not betting then you're not certain"

so i don't have a "bar" and i'm not saying you shouldn't comment, i'm simply calling you a liar.

i asked you a pretty "computable" question: what exactly do these words mean?

> I am certain their Navier-Stokes proof is incorrect.

here you go

https://polymarket.com/event/openai-retracts-navier-stokes-s...

https://polymarket.com/event/openai-retracts-navier-stokes-s...

i hope to hear all about your riches in 2027

> I am certain their Navier-Stokes proof is incorrect.

How much are you willing to bet on this?

> thousands of years from now, it might literally not be possible to prove that you ever existed, but that wouldn't change the "actual truth" - the fact that you did exist, and do things.

My man forget thousands of years in the future you don't know whether I exist today lololol

> Cool. Then don't start a discussion with m

I didn't? I told you were wrong and that's it (and then you got pissy). I know that's what happened because each of ours responses are recorded on this indelible/irrefutable medium lololol