> They're busy thinking about much more important things.
Generally I agree (because the content of modern mathematics is largely abstract), but to nitpick a bit, number theory is part of mathematics too!
Ramanujan and Euler, for example, certainly cared a lot about 'arithmetic', and historically, many parts of mathematics have been just as 'empirical' in terms of calculating things as they've been based on abstract proof.
Interesting work! Thanks for putting this together.
One potentially problematic thing about the new Imgur policy is that it will break machine learning projects that depend on Imgur for NSFW data. For example, here's a project relying on Imgur links in order to train a classifier that detects adult content:
Hmm, I suppose I'm inclined to agree with you here.
If Wikipedia chooses not to adopt a style guideline on matters like this, his little quest to robo-edit this phrase is unrepresentative of Wikipedians.
They’re enforcing a style that’s not in a work’s style guide.
That’s a total noob move for pedants.
A more at weight pedant would work on changing the style guide.
This is the equivalent of a self appointed hall monitor yelling “no skipping in the school hallway” when there’s no rule against skipping. The fact that some people don’t like skipping and that skipping is dangerous is not relevant, the place for that discussion is for the rules nerds in authority to change the rules to disallow skipping.
What worries me about this approach of one person is that they can say “I yelled at people 90k times to stop skipping therefore it’s important and we should change the rule based on all this anti-skipping activity.”
> A more at weight pedant would work on changing the style guide.
Language pedantry is deprecated in Wikipedia. WP is resolutely descriptivist.
I regret that; I'm fully on-board with the notion that language changes. But I'm not OK with the idea that there are no rules at all. Humpty Dumpty was wrong; English is not a language where any string of words could have any meaning.
One thing I missed from Frank Herbert's work in watching Villeneuve's adaptation was the intimate connection to the characters you get from reading all the dialogue. I suppose a film version is going to cut some things, but Villeneuve takes the other extreme, being so minimal with dialogue, that I felt it unnecessarily suffered here.
Google turns up a Clojure library called Avout [0].
The library itself isn't too important here, but its website cites the philosophy of Rich Hickey and Alfred North Whitehead on state being an illusion:
Rich Hickey has spoken eloquently on mutable state in his talk "Are We There Yet?" [1]. To summarize, Rich and Alfred North Whitehead [2] don't believe in mutable state, it's an illusion. Rather, there are only successions of causally-linked immutable values, and time is derived from the perception of these successions. Causally-linked means the future is a function of the past; processes apply pure functions to immutable values to derive new immutable values, and we assign identity to these chains of values, and perceive change where there is none.
Hickey's talk itself is quite interesting and goes into detail on the relevance of Whitehead's ideas in his book Process and Reality to concurrent programming.
Look into Chicken Scheme. The language offers a repository of "eggs", which cover all kinds of functionality, from SRFIs (akin to Python PIPs), to object systems, to library wrappers.
Generally I agree (because the content of modern mathematics is largely abstract), but to nitpick a bit, number theory is part of mathematics too!
Ramanujan and Euler, for example, certainly cared a lot about 'arithmetic', and historically, many parts of mathematics have been just as 'empirical' in terms of calculating things as they've been based on abstract proof.