You think we will ever be able to reclaim this symbol from Nazism? A couple centuries, perhaps?

You measure distance in time? Is there a standard spe? you use?

Working class, not middle class.

It’s quite fascinating that, on the one hand they think everything he tries will fail and he won’t achieve any of the things he promised, and at the same time they also think his policies will destroy New York City and all the business will leave.

Finally some good fucking news

Swift is open source, I don’t see a problem here. llvm was an Apple project too, everyone is using that nowadays.

When the time comes, I will be…

dead. I will be dead.

So 93% of the Linux users use English steam. I wonder how much of that is because Linux users just don’t bother to set system language (I am one of them), or maybe the language was not detected correctly.

Linux on exfat?! Do you mean ext4?

Really? People saying Obama is “as bad as the fascists”? Can you point me to one.

Calm down buddy. No one is saying that and you are obsessed, get some help.

Wait, what are you trying to say?

It could be a good sci-fi idea though. (Wachowskis et al. 1999)

I should’ve known you weren’t genuinely asking a question… You were just baiting me.

A consistent and complete theory must meet all four criteria.

You are doing what the authors are doing, this itself is an assertion you aren’t backing up.

The above four criteria are how F_QG is defined.

No, these are four criteria the authors assertion F_QG must satisfy. For theories that don’t satisfy all four criteria, you should still be able to at least formalize them into F_QG as proposed by the authors. Yet they didn’t give a concrete example of how a theory may be so formalized.

The rest of the paper explains exactly this.

Uh, what, not? “The rest of the paper” is after they have already reached the point of claiming the Universe can’t be simulated. My objection is way before that, which is pointing out how poorly F_QG is defined.

It is easy to check on the reliability of that journal as a lay person, and in doing so doesn’t seem to raise any flags about the validity of the arguments the author is presenting.

Sure, but knowing what I know I can give this paper a bit more scrutiny than a lay person can (ha ha, look at me, I am very smart /s), and this paper doesn’t convince me in the slightest.

The central assertion of this paper:

Any viable F_QG must meet four intertwined criteria:

I’d argue is only partly justified. An argument for “Effective axiomatizability” is given, “Arithmetic expressiveness” is more or less self-evident, but the other two I’d say is given without justification.

Also the core concept of F_QG is defined in a very hand-wavy way. I’d like to see a concrete example of an existing theory formalized in the way they proposed in the paper. It’s unclear to me how mathematical derivability from the formal system correspond to how laws of physics apply. Specifically mathematical logic is a discrete process, yet the world described by physics is generally contiguous. (Yes, there are ways for this to make sense, but they didn’t provide anything for me to know how they intended for this to make sense.)

This place is not a place of honor…

Don’t look into it.

Disclaimer: not a physicist, but I am familiar with mathematical logic side of things e.g. incomplete theorem and stuff.

I have to say, terrible paper. Very light on technical details, full of assertions not backed up by arguments. I wouldn’t really take this too seriously. But this is just a letter, maybe the full paper, if they ever publish one, will have more substance? We will see.

None of these have any meaning anyway, might as well do whatever you want.

Go away I was trying to sleep, now I can’t.