s-shellfish

It's about direction of influence.

Physics should not influence math. Math has to be a consequence of it's own axioms, or have it's properties tested against it's own constructions.

Otherwise math falls apart. Then it's useless for physics.

Practical application is wonderful for math. But the direction math is crafted and interpreted matters a lot.

Yes, there's a real reason for using the word discovered instead of invented. Depends on how webbed in you are intellectually to people around you. Which is often highly dependent on language, logic, and math.

Lambda calculus. Enlightenment. Discovered, not invented. If it already exists somewhere... Everything coming together in the same patterns. Influence.

It's simple. Physics uses mathematics to construct equations that describe properties of physics.

The difference is physics has reality to test against - observations that can be measured. Math does not have this. Math's only metric against itself is itself.

I don't agree with this. And honestly, I really think that depends on what foundation you rely on to think with, work with, create with, test with, and check your own tests with. Physics does not have to use itself to understand itself. Math does.

I haven't done all the math for this (I've deeply investigated the pattern for 2x+1) but it seems like this would be an obvious and intuitive result of primes. You are still generating primes from primes. Yes, you find more primes, but the computation is still dependent on primes. I'm still of the opinion that there is no complete pattern to the primes.

I'm assuming the researchers do not have the intent of confusing a crystal lattice structure with an actual mathematical lattice, because while they possibly may share similar influences in their models, one is math, the other is physics.

#keepmathpure

Resilient systems will still break. They may break less, but it's impossible to anticipate every possible usage permutation of a system from here until eternity. There are tons of reliable methods to build resilient systems and they can still have their faults. What I'm talking about is resilient system or not - someone has to be there to fix it if it breaks. There is no silver bullet when it comes to software - sometimes the difference really only can be who puts the most time in.

Minds require rest to function optimally, so pushing yourself to an extreme comes at a cost that gets realized down the line instead. Identifying which means of functioning comes at the greatest cost is not easy to analyze or ascertain. So working together in addition to competing is important as well.

All principles of capitalism. Just, never before in history has there really been so much attention paid to the mind. Software, eesh, yep.

Pressure to compete. I don't think it's anything companies convinced people into doing, it seems more like one of those unwritten rules. Especially in tech. Your system breaks, you are responsible. Not good to simply look at the clock and say 'well that's a day' if you want more responsibility, leadership, respect, trust etc.

Yea, honestly it's probably not synesthesia. Information processing, the memory of a thing overlaid on top of something similar enough. Reasoning by analogy... imprecise.

This is cool, but it's not synesthesia. Synesthesia is literally a neurological phenomona. I have it, and it's very real. It's not simply an algorithmic encoding.

> Thanks. We have talked a few time here. Always a pleasure to exchange words with you.

Thank you, I feel the same.

> I hope that you will eventually be able to feel your art in a new way- not as sadness, but as the hope it inspires for those who do benefit from it.

Me too.

> Maybe some Metta Bhavana will help you feel and connect to the persons you positively inspire? like me here on hn, or the others who replied to you.

Thank you, Theravāda is something I've only studied briefly, but it is oriented similarly to my study of Mayahana Buddhism and Zen Buddhism.