stianan
Joined 15 years ago
Karma
102
Submissions
38
Member since
Feb 15
Recent submissions
Comment · 13 years ago
Comment · 13 years ago
It's a theorem that starts off with some assumptions, and gives you some implications. It does not say anything as general as "some things are unknowable in mathematics".
Comment · 13 years ago
I appreciate your point, but I think invoking Gödel's incompletness theorems in this context is taking them far out of their scope.
Comment · 13 years ago
Is that article written by Mochizuki? Can you make sense of it?
Comment · 14 years ago
You're absolutely right. In my native language, the relative key is called the parallel key. Sorry for causing confusion.
So, to clarify, I'm not claiming there is a III in the original key, I'm referring to the III chord of the relative major key.
Comment · 14 years ago
Right, the key III is the parallel major. I'm shifting the base of the notation for this passage. When I say III ends the build up, I mean III in the parallel major key, i.e. V(7) in the original key.
Comment · 14 years ago
Your build up progression is exactly the same as mine, only I interpret it as based on the major key III. I agree we're not talking about modulation in the usual sense, but I think it makes sense to think of it as a key change. It reminds my ears of the common IV-V-vi progression, only with a suprising major VI.
Comment · 14 years ago
I think I have to a disagree with your analysis. The verse is in a minor key judging by the looping riff. This is interrupted once in a while by a iv-v-i cadence, and then the verse continues. Then the build-up, which happens in the parallel key III: IV-V-VI-VI IV-V-III-III-III and then back to the minor key for the chorus.
Comment · 14 years ago
It would be interesting to read the proof that de Jong's function has an attractor. Do you know where I could find it?
Comment · 14 years ago
So an attractor is the image of a recursively defined function?
Comment · 14 years ago
Could someone explain what an attractor is? I looked it up on Wikipedia, but I don't understand how these shapes benefit from the definition given there.
Comment · 14 years ago
My impression is that it has to do with the perceived commerciality of the entity doing/facilitating the copying.
Comment · 14 years ago
Out of curiosity, are you unlikely to use the code because it's C++ or because it comes from Facebook?
You cannot reasonably claim to know this. Of course, your parent comment cannot know that "no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience" either, as long as he only has access to his own subjective experience.