software design meta Show more
Degree of legibility needs to be an up-front requirement.
Not just for crypto (lack of legibility sans key), or ai (legibility of decision processes), or terms of service (how many pages of fine print?), but everyday protocol and software stacks (how does a webpage? what servers are talked to? why?).
System illegibility getting out of hand is not acceptable going forward. Neither are accidental legibilities (data leak). Specify up front who should understand what.
I'm not lost, I know exactly where I am. I'm just temporarily uncertain of where everything else is.
Math encyclopedias frustrate me.
Kernel is explained succinctly. Cokernel is explained via an explosive mass of category theory. I'm sure it's very nice category theory. But I just want a cokernel.
A perfect view in the math library at Bunsenstraße, Göttingen.
I am told it actually says gender theory and means genus theory. *headdesk*
„Geschlechtertheorie" - Uglier theory? Really? The last one wasn't bad enough?
& I will be confused all alone… I'm the only one taking the exam. This is the end of the road.
It's lonely out here. But it's beautiful.
Now the real work can begin.
My other profs: There is no way we can reach current research with a course at this level.
Prof M: Oh and here's an easy corrollary that hasn't been published yet.
(All 2 remaining of) us: F…
Last lecture was today… Now comes the month of confusion. I'm gonna miss it though!
(The answer, as best I can tell, is that it's not writing; it's a map.)
Math tendencies at Göttingen: Instead of being written in a line, equations start from a finite number of points and then branch out in all available directions across the board with symbols being turned and inverted at whim according to the apparent direction of travel.
Good: Diagram chases look trivial after you've tried following a diagram circus that just needs another trapeze.
Bad: Seriously, wtf?! That is not writing. Also the size of a comprehensible thought depends on the blackboard.
Also m and n apparently.
If all lines on the Cartesian plane can be defined by a vector [s p] where S is the slope (zero for a horizontal line, +/- infinity for a vertical line) and P is the position (perpendicular to the slope, intersects with origin if 0), that means that a line can be described with the same number of scalars as a point. Does that suggest that they are somehow equivalent?
Points in space referred to as L₁, L₂, L₃, L₄, and L₅, are actually R₁, R₂, R₃, R₄, and R₅ in right-hand-drive countries.
Revising notes, I come to despise the indefinite article in all its forms.
"It" - which of twenty things?
"The condition" - we have several.
"Annihilates." - annihilates what?
"be an extension." - extension of?
Say what you are talking about for goodness sake. (Harder to do than it looks.)
Does anyone have a favorite reference on #p-adic numbers?
I need them a /lot/ but missed the raw intro material, so I'm flying in the dark off of low grade resources like wikipedia at the moment. Looking for something to fill the gap between "this is the metric" and beginning Iwasawa theory.