The way I talk with numbers is much more like the dyadic rationals than like . I’ll start with a ballpark of what range I’m talking about

• cost estimate for a project
• time estimate for a project
• temperatures it might be tomorrow

and then cut it in half and use the halves (or quarters, or eighths) as units. To do otherwise would seem like false precision.

• `€20,000``{€15,000, €25,000}``{€19,000, €21,000}`
• `2:00``{2:15, 1:45}``{2:05, 1:55}`
• `70℉ ``{65℉, 75℉}``{68``℉, 72℉}`

(Speaking dyadic in decimal gets hairy without some 000’s behind you. Saying “12.5” in decimal requires 3 sigfigs, whereas I’m trying to spend only two dyads (precision ¼) not spend three decimals (precision 1‰ = 1/1000).) At any rate the spirit of my estimations is much more like bisection than continuity.

(I guess this is also how rhythms ♫♬♬♬♫ are usually notated (other than beamed tuplets)

)

I think most people probably do this, not just me. That’s why you typically meet/call someone at `:00`, `:30`, `:15`, or `:45` past the hour rather than `11:39.668451+√3/1e5`, which is a perfectly good ℝ real number.

For such a complicated name it sure is a simple concept.

(vía isomorphismes)

Like Spinoza, Nietzsche thinks about something for a bit and decides whatever conclusion he came to must have been the correct one. Learn something before you open your mouth, fool.

Fried Rice Nietzsche. Human, All Too Human

Like Spinoza, Nietzsche thinks about something for a bit and decides whatever conclusion he came to must have been the correct one. Learn something before you open your mouth, fool.

Yes, it’s ultimately futile to try to make a comprehensive comparison of things. Ultimately nothing is the same. But you know what? We don’t need to be so picky. Or rigid. Even though every rock is unique, they’re all comparable in some ways, like for example, they all fall under the category of “rock”. So I can put them in an equivalence class for the time being—without robbing them of their unique individuality, just saying they are comparable without being identical.

I feel like I’m stating the obvious. And this person is a venerated Western intellectual? Give me a break.

` `

If by the “laws of numbers” he means to undermine mathematics, then Nietzsche’s critique falls short of most interesting mathematical stuff.

Reine geometrie

We don’t “lose” the insights from the A→B process because, in Fried Rice’s opinion, there’s some problem with counting things.

Yes, not all rocks are the same. But. We can still make equivalence-classes of rocks—treating them as the same for the time being.

And even if you couldn’t—that wouldn’t change the weirdness that happens when you mix two things like plus and times

(you get prime numbers which show up at not-totally-predictable times)

…or what happens when you combine shifts and swaps:

Nobody is “making this up”. Nor does it depend upon some person’s viewpoint. You can work out the symmetric group of order 3 and you’ll find the same thing I found when I worked it out.

This crap is just like what I’ve seen of Rousseau, Spinoza, Hegel, even Leibniz. People so full of themselves they think every time they clear their throat someone should get out a pen.

Remember that this is the same bloke who posited in The Eternal Return that states-of-affairs must recur given an infinite amount of time. Which is wrong: dynamical systems can wander off and never come back, like a random walker in 3D.

To me it’s much worse to invent false histories or pretend to authority than to suggest we treat a handful of rocks as equivalent for-the-moment. Get off yourself, Nietzsche.

(via isomorphismes)

(vía isomorphismes)

Uma parte de mim
é todo mundo:
outra parte é ninguém:
fundo sem fundo.

uma parte de mim
é multidão:
outra parte estranheza
e solidão.

Uma parte de mim
pesa, pondera:
outra parte
delira.

Uma parte de mim
é permanente:
outra parte
se sabe de repente.

Uma parte de mim
é só vertigem:
outra parte,
linguagem.

na outra parte
- que é uma questão
de vida ou morte -
será arte?

- Ferreira Gullar (1930 - )

El ojo todopoderoso.

The almighty eye.

An insufficiently ugly temporary hack is permanent. — Benjamin Black (@b6n)

(vía isomorphismes)