blueplanet200

> actual analysis

Um, I believe I have linked you to "actual analysis" where techniques used are more exotic than boosted decision trees.

>Thankfully, for folks all in on the Apple ecosystem, it should be pretty decent of an experience.

How many people are for now and forever more all in on the Apple ecosystem. You never have to login on another non Apple device ever?

I don't know, I find:

>AT TIME ZONE 'UTC' converts the data type from timestamptz to timestamp

surprising and a foot gun. Asking for at a timezone stripping the timezone makes no sense to me. Having `AT TIME ZONE 'UTC'` produce a timestamptz at +0:00 seems not insane.

Exactly. OP meant that it has permission to do anything, hence "admin".

And a lot of GPU cycles happen before next token prediction, what's your point?

I just bought a QNAP. I'm a happy customer.

Thanks for showing up and owning the mistake.

While I'm encouraged by this response, I still feel a sense of fear that this fix is a one off, if you could speak to how this could even happen and how mistakes like these would be prevented in the future I'm sure the community would appreciate it.

> For example, the idea that there are the same number of integers as even integers is a stupid one that in the end does not lead anywhere useful.

Well, there are the same number. So, uh, sorry?

The axiom of choice is debated as a matter of if its inclusion into our mathematics produces useful math.

I don't think it's debated on the ground of if it's true or not.

And I was imprecise with language, but by saying "math is math" I meant that there are things that logically follow from the ZFC axioms. That is hard to debate or be skeptical of. The point I was driving was that it's strange to be skeptical of an axiom. You either accept it or not. Same as the parallel postulate in geometry, where you get flat geometry if you take it, and you get other geometries if you don't, like spherical or hyperbolic ones...

To give what I would consider to be a good counterargument, if one could produce an actual inconsistency with ZFC set theory that would be strong evidence that it is "wrong" to accept it.

All that BT tells me is that when I break up a set (sphere) into multiple sets with no defined measure (how the construction works) I shouldn't expect reassemlbing those sets should have the same original measure as the starting set.

> pi definitely exists in physical reality,

What does it mean to "exist in physical reality"?

If you mean there are objects that have physical characteristics that involve pi to infinite precision I think the truth is we have not a darn clue. Take a circle, that would have to be a perfect circle. Even our most accurate and precise physical theories only measure and predict things to 10s of decimal places. We do not possess the technology to verify that it's a real true circle to infinite precision, and many reason to think that such a measurement would be impossible.

Please say more, I don't see how you can be _skeptical_ of those ideas.

Math is math, if you start with ZFC axioms you get uncountable infinites.

Maybe you don't start with those axioms. But that has nothing to do with truth, it's just a different mathematical setting.

>I'm an enthusiastic Cantor skeptic

A skeptic in what way? He said a lot.