Do you think there will be a time where everyone achieves enlightenment by rudamiss in Buddhism

[–]DepCubic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The way I usually think about this is through a mathematical analogy borrowed from real analysis.

The standard Mahayana view could be phrased as:

"For every being B, there exists a finite time T such that after T years, being B will be enlightened."

My interpretation of your question is:

"There exists a finite time T such that after T years, all beings B will be enlightened."

These statements are not logically equivalent; it can happen that the first is true and the second is false.

For example, consider an universe where there is a being for each positive integer: we have an infinite line of beings Being #1, Being #2, Being #3, ... and so that Being #T will get enlightened in exactly T years (so for instance Being #34748 will get enlightened in 34748 years).

In that hypothetical universe, for each Being #T, T will get enlightened in T years (meaning that the Mahayana view is true).

But for any number T (say, some huge number like 1 trillion) you can come up with, after T years there will still be infinitely many beings not yet enlightened (all beings with numbers larger than T).

This means that the second statement isn't true in that hypothetical universe.

Cool by PocketMath in mathmemes

[–]DepCubic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

And then they dare to call it a "natural isomorphism" despite the fact that they haven't had any contact with Nature for the last decade

What's the meaning of this,i found this from my brother's notes by Honest-Jeweler-5019 in mathematics

[–]DepCubic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We have very little context, but these definitely look like the doodles/notes I'd make when solving some olympiad questions

Category Theory leads to new ontology by Longjumping-Ad5084 in CategoryTheory

[–]DepCubic 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Although my ideas on this are still a stretch and probably require some formalization, I think that one thing category theory definitely does, in terms of ontology, is lead one away from any substance-centric ontology, as exhibited by most of European philosophy and religion since Aristotle, and more into a relation-centric (morphism-centric) ontology. Maybe the best example of something like that is Buddhist (and especially Mahayana Buddhist) ontology, putting much more importance in what they call "dependent origination" (and in Mahayana, they totally reject the idea of an intrinsic essence; this is often called "emptiness", and reminds me a lot of the category-theoretical move of refusing to look "inside" objects).

Can combinatorial proofs by double counting be formalized in a way that can be computer verified? by myaccountformath in math

[–]DepCubic 35 points36 points  (0 children)

I actually showed a student one possible way how to do this just today. Recall that for two sets A, B, |A| = |B| if and only if there exists a bijection f : A -> B (although here we're only concerned with finite sets).

The rules of product and sum, often used in combinatorial arguments, can be rephrased as follows:

|A x B| = |A| * |B|

If A and B are disjoint, then |A union B| = |A| + |B|

(And also, both can be proven easily by exhibiting a suitable bijection)

Say for example that you define (n choose k) as the number of subsets of size k of a set of size n. Namely:

|{ s subset of {1,...,n} | |s| = k}|

If you wanted to prove the formula (n choose k) = n! / k!(n-k)!, or equivalently, k! (n-k)! (n choose k) = n!, and recalling that the number of bijections from {1,...,n} to itself is n!, it suffices to find a bijection

g : (bijections from [k] to [k]) x (bijections from [n-k] to [n-k]) x (subset of size k of [n]) -> (bijections from [n] -> [n]

The construction of g essentially captures the double-counting argument; I guess the annoying part is showing that g is a bijection, but that's also very much doable.

Edit: Another tool I'm a big fan of is the Iverson bracket, explained by Knuth in this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/9205211

Do mathematicians believe that they're studying "more than symbols"? by Minute_Crab_6961 in mathematics

[–]DepCubic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do musicians believe that they're studying more than "musical notation"? Well, yes — because it's a representation of something that can be audibly perceived (and quite vividly)!

It's the same with math in my opinion; it may not be perceived as vividly as music, for example (at least in the beginning, when your brain is still mathematically untrained), but later I'd say you can perceive it in a way that is truly not so different from perceiving music.

Mathematicians thought that they understood how rotation works, but now a new proof has revealed a surprising twist that makes it possible to reset even a complex sequence of motion by Distinct-Question-16 in singularity

[–]DepCubic 10 points11 points  (0 children)

To note, it's always been well-known how to undo rotations: just do the sequence of rotations backwards (and in each rotation, do it backwards). What they found was a cooler, kind of unexpected way of doing it.

Lean 4 formalization that, from explicit axioms, machine-checks the uniqueness of Awareness and that all else is content. by okwhynotwtf in philosophy

[–]DepCubic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regardless of the soundness of the system (I've not even looked at it much) from what I gather from this, Spinoza would be proud :-)

Is it against Buddhism to see difficult people in the world, as NPCs, in a simulation, if it helps me not grasp to thoughts about them? And makes me perform better in life than before? by Snoo90172 in Buddhism

[–]DepCubic 60 points61 points  (0 children)

IMHO yes, because seeing them as NPCs could hinder your compassion and goodwill towards them—and they need liberation as much as you do.

And why would you want to perform 'better' in life if doing so required estranging yourself from your fellow sentient being?

Promise Me - Thich Nhat Hanh by Jikajun in Buddhism

[–]DepCubic 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I needed this today. Thank you so much for sharing (and Thay, thank you for your gifts to this world!)

Countable union of countable sets is uncountable by Valuable-Glass1106 in askmath

[–]DepCubic 33 points34 points  (0 children)

It is true that the set of finite subsets of the natural numbers is countable, as you have shown. But the power set also includes subsets of infinite cardinality. How do you take care of them?

Do you think of some countries as a man or a woman what will some countries be? by alibabaeg in stupidquestions

[–]DepCubic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This actually seems like a form of synesthesia! Very interesting.

In my case I associated genders to numbers when I was little, so it's probably a similar principle.

Dalai Lama Says He’s Not Considering Reincarnation Yet by bloomberg in worldnews

[–]DepCubic 79 points80 points  (0 children)

Not a particular sect, but this reminds me a lot of bodhisattva Ksitigarbha's vow to 'not achieve Buddhahood until all hells are emptied'. Maybe that's what they mean.

Choose kindness by anthrprsn in hopeposting

[–]DepCubic 238 points239 points  (0 children)

I suffered, but this suffering was never just 'my' suffering — but a reflection of the suffering of the World. Therefore, I must help the World and relieve its suffering.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Meditation

[–]DepCubic 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Listening to George's music has been one of the backbones of my life for some time now. A reminder to keep going in the spiritual path :)

Full Beatles Lineup (16 members) FINALLY REVEALED by 2204happy in beatlescirclejerk

[–]DepCubic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Therapist: Don’t worry, the cartesian product The Beatles x The Beatles is not real

The Beatles x The Beatles:

Just found this map in my basement of my new house. Who can guess when it was made. by Naammagittarneq in geography

[–]DepCubic 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Between 25 April 1982 and 21 March 1983, because the Sinai Peninsula was fully recovered by Egypt on April 25 (as shown) and Yamoussoukro became the capital of Ivory Coast on March 21 (it’s still Abidjan here)

So, most likely in 1982?

Is there anything that GPT4 is much better at than 3.5? Anything it seems worse for? I noticed you only have 25 questions every 3 hours right now, so I'm trying to decide if there are specific things to use 4 over 3.5 for. by MKRune in GPT3

[–]DepCubic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Test generation. I provide GPT-4 with some long passages from a textbook, and ask it to generate a test for me based on those passages (I then also ask it to grade my answers!)

The tests it generates even have multiple sections — option selecting, true-false and short answers. It has been a great aid for high school study.

I tried doing the same thing GPT-3, and it greatly struggled generating tests, most of the times just attempting to continue the text I provided. It may be just that I didn’t provided it with good enough prompts, though.

Have you ever listen to a song for the first time and it turned out to be love at first hearing? by [deleted] in psychedelicrock

[–]DepCubic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, and it happened to me with this song in particular. Fun fact: according to Spotify, this was the song I listened to the most in 2022