Why do you feel this is a reduction? If anything, it is an attempt to summarize the various areas of math and how they relate to each other.

Isn't every summarization a reduction?

> Isn't every summarization a reduction?

Broadly yes, but summarization can simultaneously be compression of data and revelation of structure, hence increasing understanding.

It’s like principal component analysis, the main axis, I don’t mean reduction in a negative way.

Just like many of the novel synthetiser drugs, unknown substances are very dangerous. The culprit here seems to be the victim thought he was consuming regular honey.

I took a novel synthesizer drug in the 1980s. They called it a Moog Stabilizer.

In a linked article it said something like 77% of cases were deliberate consumption of mad honey for thereputic qualities.

Very good resource. However, I fail to understand how a monkey writing the Hamlet is akin to a brute-force problem, in Terence's own words. The thesis seems to be here that given enough time, a monkey will be able to reason as a human.

Edit: Probably refers to the evolutionary aspect of the problem. My criticism is that he compares the time for a monkey needed to learn the hamlet to merely "quadratic time". I disagree that such degree of non-linearity applies here. I think it is grossly simplified/underestimated.

Could you be conflating writing hamlet with understanding how to write hamlet? as in, what it takes to end up with the same raw output though devoid of intent and meaning

He doesn’t say quadratic time, he says infinite time. He is talking about the probability of any given string arising from a random sequence of letters. As t goes to infinity that probability approaches 1.

The monkeys don’t understand hamlet. They just bash enough keys that it appears by chance (eventually). Hence “‘It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times…’ Stupid monkey. “

Here's something to ponder. Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis is true, would that monkey type out a proof of the RH before it got to Hamlet? I guess it depends on if the proof can be expressed in fewer words than the word count of Hamlet.

"The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys independently and at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, including the complete works of William Shakespeare."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

To be fair, I didn't watch the video to the part where he mentions monkeys writing Hamlet, but I thought the point of the monkeys is that they will stumble upon a Hamlet by accident at some point in time, by randomly pressing buttons on a keyboard. Obviously, it would take a long time, but it would happen at some point.

> Obviously, it would take a long time, but it would happen at some point.

Has someone done the calculation whether it would happen before the end of the universe?

It would involve multiple, multiple universes (but not infinite) coming and going. Even with infinite monkeys.

Great resource, thank you.

If you are thinking using AI to classify messages, the scale of email spam is so massive that using conventional techniques won't work. It won't make sense energetically speaking IMO.

I think techniques like HashCash by Adam Back should be revisited.

Post was flagged, likely because the ratio of comments. Single word contributions like this do not help.

The post being flagged has nothing to do with my comment, please don't sensationalise

Yep, that's one of the reasons it is called "green" energy. On top of renewability, the environmental impact of production is radically different from fossil fuels.

Awesome resource, thank you Sir!

I am so sorry for your loss. This is a beautiful and touching tribute and she was lucky to have such a loving husband.

Interesting, related: I've seen previous research also showing how glucoses and fats affect decision making by triggering different cognitive paths.