gugagore

d/dt phase = frequency

that matches

> it's the speed at which the sample pointer consumes the looping sine that's set to correspond to some frequency

The rest of your message doesn't make sense to me. Both phase and frequency can be modulated, perhaps most clearly seen with FSK vs. PSK.

exploit and explore are the same word in Portuguese.

> For "basic” abstraction, lambda calculus is the canonical approach. There is no equivalent for concurrency. There are multiple different approaches. Which one is canonical?

Simply-typed lambda calculus guarantees that the computation terminates. Sometimes you need non-termination. Fixed point operators is one thing that brings in all the stuff that you threw out.

Linear logic is good for the bits and pieces of concurrency where you don't need concurrency. Linear logic guarantees that there are no race conditions. Sometimes you need race conditions — how do you fit that in there? Sometimes, having race conditions is really important: I am selling tickets and there is going to be a race for who gets the last ticket. Is there a single thing you can add to linear logic that would give me race conditions? Not known. - Philip Wadler on Type Theory Forall #54 - The Goal of Science is to Communicate Ideas!

> All the bad-ass biped robots that actually look natural? It's PID controls wrapped with control barrier functions constraining the QPs that are being solved in real time.

That's not entirely true. Locomotion is well addressed by RL in sim. It's true that there is still a PD layer, and the RL policy produces setpoints for it.

To say nothing of "Swift for TensorFlow" when Julialang was an option.

To each their own!

I follow your connection, though I think your unit analogy is a strawman.

Do you want to give two different types to complex numbers, depending on whether a given complex number represents a point versus a transformation (an amplitwist)?

The part in this that I most question / deviate from is what I've quoted below about having distinctions (syntactically?) between objects and operations. Conceptually, it's a good distinction. But is it so clearly wise to bake in that distinction into the formal framework when doing calculations or proof?

> Most of the time we think of complex numbers as vectors in R2 or as rotation+scaling operators, but rarely do we actually we want them in both roles at the same time. So it is not very natural to equate the two objects, as opposed to finding a correspondence between them.

> So GA ends up being very stuck because it equates “vectorial objects” and “operators that act on vectorial objects”. It would be better to express all the geometric objects you care about in their most natural forms, and then find isomorphisms between them when it’s necessary to do so. Otherwise all the meanings get blurred together and it’s very confusing. So that’s another problem with geometric algebra: eliding the distinction between vectors and operators is undesirable, confusing, and disingenuous.

People are jumping on it being an important file to review. You don't want to ignore the diff.

Even if that's true, you definitely do not want to attempt merge two lock files, and using the .gitattributes file to set the merge strategy is a good idea!

If there is a stack of size n and you make a modification at the first change, closest to the trunk, is there a single git command you can run to rebase the other n-1 branches and ensure they remote branches are updated?