(Ah, I’m in central time, so that’s why mine says 1:45a but MikkW’s says 11:45p. Anyway, still locked out)
Maxwell Peterson
I tried that a couple times, including just now after seeing your recommendation to, but get:
”The Walled Garden is a private virtual space managed by the LessWrong team.It is closed right now. Please return on Sunday between noon and 4pm PT, when it is open to everyone. If you have a non-Sunday invite, you may need to log in.”
The edit with the guest-pass worked!
Although I had trouble logging in at first, I still liked having the whole thing inside the walled garden, rather than starting in zoom and switching. I think it was worth the trouble (and probably that trouble won’t happen every time)
I like this idea, selfishly, having two posts in the frontpage-[0-50]-uncommented category last week myself.
I agree that the specification of which state of knowledge we’re under is critical to the solution. Another way to put it is what I’m seeing over and over again as I go through Jaynes’ Probability Theory book: different prior information leading to different probability estimates is not paradoxical. That’s why specifying prior information with clarity is so important. Under one set of prior information, the probability is 1⁄3; under another, it’s 1⁄2.
If anyone is confused seeing that my account has no posts… I just discovered that I accidentally have two accounts. This is me too: https://www.lesswrong.com/users/allswellthatsmaxwell
Here I am a third time, this time with extra convenience :). This is my main, since it has the actual posts. Gonna get rid of the other one… or something.
Thanks—fixed
Fixed!
Nice recommendation—learned multiple things from it
Ahh. I could very well be wrong. Trying to understand this; visualization-wise, are you saying that instead of visualizing the point moving around, with the green circles fixed, we should be visualizing the green circles moving around, with the point fixed?
Yeah, this makes sense. Hmm. I’ll think about this more then edit the post. Thanks
Love it. Never tried the old editor, but had tried writing posts a couple times in the past, on other sites. I’d always get stuck screwing with the editor settings and trying to figure it out, or losing my work, or whatever. This current LW editor makes it so easy that I finally finished a post (and then two more)! The editor isn’t the whole reason for that, but it’s definitely a factor.
Intuitively, a metric outputs how different two things are, while a measure outputs how big something is.
In terms of inputs and outputs: a metric takes two points as input, and outputs a positive real number. A measure takes one set as input, and outputs a positive real number.
Thanks!
That helps—I wasn’t sure whether there might maybe be some small special intuitive difference in Borel or Jordan that could correspond to a different real world example, but now I think that’s definitely a No.
I was at the University of Washington from the beginning of 2013 to the end of 2014 and noticed almost none of this. I was in math and computer science courses, and outside of class mostly hung out with international students, so maybe it was always going on right around the corner, or something? But I really don’t remember feeling anything like the described. I took a Drama class and remember people arguing about… Iraq...? for some reason, with there being open disagreement among students about some sort of hot-button topic. More important, one of the TAs once lectured to the whole entire class of a couple hundred students about racism in theater, and at times spoke in sort of harsh “if you disagree, you’re part of the problem” terms… and some students walked out! Walking out is a pretty strong signal, and not the kind of thing you do if you’re afraid of retribution.
This is all an undergraduate perspective. Any effect like this could be a lot stronger among people trying to actually make a career at the school.
Gotcha. The non-linearity part “breaking” things makes sense. The main uncertainty in my head right now is whether repeatedly convolving in 2d would require more convolutions to get near gaussian than are required in 1d—like, in dimension m, do you need m times as many distributions; more than m times as many,;or can you use the same amount of convolutions as you would have in 1d? Does convergence get a lot harder as dimension increases, or does nothing special happen?
Yup, totally! I recently learned about this theorem and it’s what kicked off the train of thought that led to this post.
Trying the link at 11:59 california time, I am getting “Your invite code is for an event that has yet started! Please come back at Monday, November 9th, 1:45am”