Everybody (ok, not everybody) wants to be Feynman and come up with a graphical language to describe complicated mathematics. Well, I gotta say, this style of “Wiring Diagram”, I like. It’s got “black boxes”, each with their own wiring diagrams and, if you like, any of these wiring diagrams can become black boxes in in bigger wiring diagrams. Basically, it’s “black boxes all the way down”. You stop at whatever level you need to work at and can ignore the levels below if you like — so long as they’re working correctly (take the inputs, produce the outputs, of the expected quality, in the expected time. In this, length of the wires indicates time. It’s a “supply and demand” graph. In this paper, they’re “peeking inside” the wiring of the black boxes to see if it can be wired better, and play around with making iterative loops by connecting “input” to the inner box instead of the outer box, which is basic “how to make fractals / recursions / loops-across-time / etc” fun. I like seeing a math theory writer inadvertently discovering computer programming. :) THE OPERAD OF TEMPORAL WIRING DIAGRAMS: FORMALIZING A GRAPHICAL LANGUAGE FOR DISCRETE-TIME PROCESSES DYLAN RUPEL AND DAVID I. SPIVAK 2003 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6894.pdf

Everybody (ok, not everybody)
[read full article]

Go where he went online. Talk to who he talked to. I keep seeing snippets of this manifesto all over the place. It’s not rocket science. You can find all the same ideas talked about in any numbers of groups online. What specifically makes this man stand out is that he murdered people in cold blood that he did not consider people. What good it is to want to learn, “Why he considers people not people”? Do I want to find out how much I agree or disagree with his assessments? What’s the trio? means motive opportunity It’s not rocket science.

Go where he went [read full article]