zzless

The choice of pi as a number whose sequence of digits is random is a bit of a weak point of the argument in the post. It is not even known whether every digit 0-9 appears infinitely many times in pi (a weak version of the normal number conjecture). So we do not really know (but strongly believe) that the sequence of pi digits would truly appear random. This of course does not detract from beautiful arguments and the general ideas in this post.

His definition of Kolmogorov complexity is a bit loose. The rigorous definition uses Turing machines (or Minsky, or Post, or some sort of lambda expression, etc.) so the size is something specific. Different versions of complexity defined this way may give different values but have the same properties and asymptotics so one might just as well stick with the Turing kind. Chaitin's theorem (about the limit of Kolmogorov's complexity being just entropy) holds for all versions as well.

With all due respect, no, it isn't. His drivel against set theory shows that he didn't even read the basic axiomatic set theory texts. In one of his papers, he is ranting against the axiom of infinity saying that 'there exists an infinite set' is not a precise mathematical statement. However, the axiom of infinity does not say any such thing! It precisely states the existence of some object than can be thought of as infinite but does not assign any semantics to it. Ironically, if he looked deeper, he would realize that the most interesting set theoretic proofs (independence results) are really the results in basic arithmetic (although covered in a lot of abstractions) and thus no less 'constructive' than his rational trigonometry.

I have a couple of EB6s to show to my students but ever since scientific calculators were allowed in written tests, I have never used one myself. Law of cosines is good enough for wind triangles :). Worked for a commercial test as well as the ATP. It is a beautiful device though ...

I am not sure why you are being downvoted but you are absolutely right: it is even in the name (WD stands for 'Water Displacement'). My reaction to this article was a huge: 'why?'. WD-40 is at best mediocre at everything it is used for. Wurth makes much more capable compounds for the came purposes. Their penetrating oil is unmatched. I guess as part of the popular culture, WD-40 has its value but I am not sure its chemical properties are all that unique.

>Also, possessive pronouns are exactly like in English, concording in gender with the owner, not the object.

This is only true in third person singular. For example, in first person singular: 'моя чашка' (my cup, 'cup' is feminine) vs. 'мой ключ' (my key, 'key' is masculine). Third person plural: 'ихнее дело' (their business, neuter) vs. 'ихняя забота' (their concern, feminine) although most educated Russian speakers would object to these pronouns as a bit too colloquial (although not as colloquial as 'евойная'). Same in second person singular: 'твой друг' (your friend, masculine) vs. 'твоя подруга' (your friend, feminine). In all of the examples above, the gender of the speaker/owner cannot even be determined (grammatically speaking).

Army PIT? Ah, this is not a good name...

This is a fine opinion, here is another one. Calling everyone who uses LaTeX cultists is a bit insulting. I do not particularly like LaTeX and use it only when a journal requires it in which case it is pretty much painless as I simply follow the provided template. TeX, on the other hand pretty much satisfies all my typesetting needs and I use it daily. I wish everyone would use TeX or LaTeX but I would not force it on everyone. Typst seems like a fine if a bit immature system but I truly hope it goes away, the sooner the better. Not because it is bad at what it does but because it solves a problem that does not exist and distracts from a standard that may not be perfect but has proved itself again and again. I am also weary of any piece of software that is controlled by a private entity, no matter how good the initial intentions are. Being open source is not really a guarantee of anything.

With all due respect to your perspective on TeX, isn't it the whole point? There are weaknesses in TeX (like using $ for both beginning and ending the math mode) but they are quite minor. Quirkiness is not a weakness but being a standard (since 1986!) is a major strength. The fact that it does not change is a blessing, truly. Python may be a fine language with a great community of supporters and I use it because I pretty much must but programming in something that is essentially a moving target is no fun. And I would take TeX macros over Python ugly syntax any day, no offense. Not to say I am right just to point out that taste is not necessarily a reliable guide.

I was wandering the same thing. Quite often the insurance sets a much higher standard than what is legal. I had a lot of fun flying a local police helicopter as a commercial helicopter pilot with the police pilot (who only had a private certificate at the time) simply because insurance required a commercial pilot to be present in the cockpit.

In my experience a more appropriate title for this book would be: 'Linear algebra done ok if this is your second time doing it'. I have seen way too many students who, after having taken a course that used this textbook, could not give an example of a linear operator (yes, I literally asked, show me an example of a linear operator in R^3) because they literally do not have the language for it (because 'matrices are bad').

I have the same sentiment about TeX. The fact that the language has been stable for over 30 years is incredibly important to me. I also feel like I can do anything in TeX: I have written a C compiler in TeX as an academic exercise so I cannot take complaints about TeX's macros seriously.

I am also doubting his claim that he had several students land without assistance on the first try. I have had a few students land with minimal assistance on the first try but I am quite sure that the airplane would be damaged had I refrained from making a couple of minor corrections. Some of those students were very talented (one soloed at 7 hours and went on to fly for Jet Blue eventually, of course this had little to do with my instruction) but they still needed a little bit of help the first time.

I understand this is a (good) attempt at humor but this might be an interesting idea to see if Bluetooth leaks from inside the microwave oven (or from the outside in). Of course, the microwave has to stay off, naturally :)