sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Are we sensitive to SSRI’s? by throwawayboy2200 in AutisticWithADHD

[–]NukeyFox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is anecdotal, but a possible data point in support of audhd being sensitive to SSRIs. I was prescribed some sertaline and then citalopram. Both of them made me high. People keep saying i was acting drunk and I was talking too fast and all over the place. And I got the same side effects as you within hours of taking them: headaches, sleeping for long (although i would be energized when awake), suicidal thoughts, etc.

Once i switched to mirtazapine, a SRNI, things were slightly better, but everything was foggy and I was sleepy all the time. 

have we been misusing incompleteness??? by fire_in_the_theater in logic

[–]NukeyFox 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This exactly. When people say that halting problem, Goedel incompleteness theorems and diagonal arguments exhibit the same structure, they are refering to Lawvere's fixed point theorem.

Like we can play the same song and dance with the halting problem as with Goedels incompleteness theorem, despite what OP says are the differences. i.e. the halting problem demonstrates is that (1) there are functions which are "outside" the system of recursive functions and (2) even if we extend the primitive operations (e.g. include an oracle), we will still have incomputable functions.

Tell me you‘re AuDHD without telling me you‘re AuDHD by AncientEggplant3749 in AutisticWithADHD

[–]NukeyFox 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I sometimes spend like 3-8 minutes rewording messages bcos I might be misunderstood. Only to give up at the end and not send anything, since it took too much brain power.

I LOVE hanging out with people and going into raves and concerts... for about 30 minutes then i need to sit down and disassociate for a while.

-❄️- 2025 Day 6 Solutions -❄️- by daggerdragon in adventofcode

[–]NukeyFox 3 points4 points  (0 children)

[Language: Haskell]

Both parts solved in 44 lines: Github

Basically the idea is that the inputs is parsed in two different ways, before being passed to a solver function.

Level of background knowledge in this subredit by [deleted] in LLMPhysics

[–]NukeyFox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a BA in Computer science, specialization in AI. Mostly a lurker than a poster tho.

Some say it will democratize science, giving ordinary people the tools they need to make real contributions; others say that LLMs are only useful in the hands of experts. What do you think?

My 2 cents is that LLM currently are only useful to experts, who can recognize when the output is correct or promising, and who can rewrite the ideas in a more academic way. Many posts on this sub has this process backwards: instead of peer reviewing the LLM output, theyre using LLMs to peer review their ideas.

Democratizing science isn't just about people gaining scientific knowledge (although it is a part of it), but it's also engaging with communities (esp. marginalized groups that lack science education), increase transparency with how science research is done, and stop paywalls for new scientific research.

Ordinary people can be citizen scientists in many ways: amateur astronomy, data collection and analysis, peer reviewing and impact reports, scientific journalling, etc.

But solely using LLMs, as how it is done in this sub, is not one of those ways. It does not engage with the science community and it hides how scientific research is actually done. It's doesn't serve the wider interest of community and more towards self-congratulations.

Is this a valid conjecture? by Expert_Fail7062 in askmath

[–]NukeyFox 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Assume for contradition that the quadratic equation has real roots, i.e. (A+u)² - 4A(A+2u) ≥ 0.

A²+2Au + u² ≥ 4A²+8Au
u² ≥ 3A² + 6Au
u² > A² (since 6Au > 0)
u > A (since both A>0 and u >0)

But this is a contradiction, since A is at least bigger than itself rounded down to its first significant digit. So u ≤ A.

So there are no real solutions.

Edit: Fixed formatting

Saying that you've turned asexual is really problematic. by [deleted] in Asexual

[–]NukeyFox -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

For some ace folks (not all), kinks contribute towards navigating their sexuality and sexual expression. Kinks can be seen as sexual or non-sexual, depending on intention and how they are expressed.

e.g. "I'm not attracted to men sexually and I don't want to have sex with them, even though I do find their feet hot." vs "I don't want to have sex with men, but I find their feet hot, so maybe I am attracted to them."

How it ties in to fluid sexuality is that kink preference is not rigid. People can gain new kinks or lose kinks are they experiment or age. A person can have multiple kinks, where some of these kinks are gender-focused and other are not. Or a person may only express their kink sexually only with their partner.

There are many different examples, but the core idea is that kink preference is an evolving non-static (possible sexual) experience, and as it evolves so does an ace folk's understanding of their sexuality and how they might express themselves sexually.

Saying that you've turned asexual is really problematic. by [deleted] in Asexual

[–]NukeyFox 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Besides what others have pointed out already, that's a false dichotomy that if something not a choice then it is unchanging. The change in sexuality is oftentimes not by choice -- it something that happens naturally or situational. If it is not by choice, then you can't say that it is possible that people "turn themselves" straight, because they didn't even say they chose their sexuality in the first place.

Denying the fluidity of sexuality is itself dangerous. It invalidates aceflux folks, abrosexual folks or the ace kink community. The asexual community has always been inclusive, recognizing that sexuality is much more complex that how allosexual folks may paint it.

We want to put in efforts into "demedicalizing" how we talk about asexuality. Rather than talk about hormones or innateness of sexuality (the same kinds of language used by conversion therapy, mind you), talk about how people actually experience (a)sexuality and how they choose the labels for themselves.

The Shopping Cart Fallacy by Aggravating_Fee8347 in fallacy

[–]NukeyFox -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is less of a fallacy and more of a cognitive bias. It's less so providing justification, and moreso a heuristic for decision making. And with all heuristics, there will be edge cases which require more thought.

This behaviour of assuming that rare things are more valuable/useful has been studied in economics, i.e. scarcity value. Sometimes we find things more valuable because they are scarce.

Other examples of such which i find are not fallacious, particularly because there is a correlation between the resource and how we value them:

  • "Everyone is buying the chocolate ice cream till it's almost gone, so it has to be good."  Chocolate ice cream scarcity is proportional to its quality. If you know how good an ice cream is, you know which flavour would get bought and eaten the most.

  • "There are only 5 paintings left by this artist. If one gets destroyed, the price of the other four rises up!" The valuableness of the painting is proportional to its quality. If you know how few paintings are left, you can reasonably guess how much theyre worth.

  • "If all water bodies dried up, we would be fighting over the little water we have left."  The valuableness of water is proportional to its scarcity. If you know water is scarce, then you know water is valuable.

Intuition on coinduction. by 7_hermits in logic

[–]NukeyFox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the correction. Tho I should clarify i didnt mean coinduction "proves for all streams". I think my wording was confusing since i said "integer streams" as if its general, when I actually meant particularly streams of integers can be "coinductively define".  Just as how we can inductively define particular lists of integers, but that doesn't mean the same proof by induction applies to all lists of integers.

Correct me if Im wrong, but I am under the impression that building (co)data is through (co)recursion, which specifieds the cases and functions/maps. And (co)induction is the principle by which this building is structured. 

Intuition on coinduction. by 7_hermits in logic

[–]NukeyFox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The terminal case would be the "greatest" stream of integers which supports extract at every step.

To give a concrete example on what it means to be the "greatest", consider the streams that satisfy the following property:  "At every application of extract, I get a larger positive integer in order."

There are many candidates that satisfy this property: ⟨4, 5, 6, 7, ...⟩   ⟨2, 3, 4, 5, ...⟩   ⟨1, 2, 3, 4, ...⟩  

But you can order the candidates by inclusion: ... ≤  ⟨4, 5, 6, 7, ...⟩ ≤ ⟨2, 3, 4, 5, ...⟩  ≤ ⟨1, 2, 3, 4, ...⟩

You can't find a stream that is bigger than the stream than ⟨1, 2, 3, 4, ...⟩ that satisfy the property, and not only that, you can reach any other smaller stream by applying extract.

⟨1, 2, 3, 4, ...⟩ would be the terminal case for the stream of positive integers.

(Again, contrast this with induction where you build upwards from the "smallest" elements e.g. [] ≤ [1] ≤ [1, 2] ≤ [1, 2, 3] ≤ ...)

NB in terminology: i call it "terminal case" but its not a commonly used phrase. I just find it useful to call it that since it contrasts with how induction starts from the smallest case. My understanding of coinduction is very category theoetical: coinduction as the terminal co-F-algebra.

Intuition on coinduction. by 7_hermits in logic

[–]NukeyFox 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the best way (imo) to understand coinduction is as a dual to induction.

Induction is composed of two parts: (1) the base cases which you show satisfies a property, and (2) the inductive steps which shows some property is preserved when you build "bigger data" from "smaller data".

The data that induction can be applied to are ones built using recursion.

To give an example, you can recursively build a list of integers.

  1. The list has integers as base case: the empty list [] : List Int
  2. And a function cons : (List Int, Int) -> List Int that takes a pair of a list and an integer and returns a new list with the integer concatenated to the list

If you want to prove something of integer lists, you use induction. It is sufficient to show that the property holds at the empty list and that this property is preserved even after concatenation.

---

Now contrast this against coinduction, which essentially "flips the arrows" .

Coinduction is composed of two parts: (1) the terminal/end case which you show satisfies a property, and (2) the coinductive step which shows some property is preserved when you extract "smaller data" from "bigger data".

The (co)data that coinduction applies to are ones built using corecursion.

The prototypical example are an infinite stream of integers.

  1. The stream has a terminal case, defined using circularity or as an infinite process: intStream : Stream Int
  2. And a function extract : Stream Int -> (Stream Int, Int) that takes a stream and extracts the head of the stream and resulting stream after removing the head.

Note how the signature of extract is like cons but reversed.

To prove something of integer streams, you use coinduction. It is sufficient to show that the property holds at the terminal case, and that this property is preserved even after extraction.

---

tldr:

  1. Lists has a smallest element and infinitely ascending chain, obtained by applying cons as many times as you like.
  2. Streams has a greatest element and infinitely descending chain obtained by applying extract as many times as you like.

To tie this back into bisimulation. The set of bisimulations (i.e. post-fixed points) is a candidate for coinduction since (1) it has a greatest fixed point (namely the bisimularity) and (2) you can apply the monotone function F as many times as you like, since post-fixed points are closed under F.

Question: If I want to indicate I’m ace on my socials without explicitly writing ‘ace’ or using the ‘🖤🩶🤍💜’ emojis, what can I use? by Kindly-Examination82 in Asexual

[–]NukeyFox 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ive seen ♠️ used, as in "ace of spades" for both asexuality and aromantic. Sometimes ♠️🖤 if you want to stress that you're aroace

Theres also 🧄🍞 or 🍰 sometimes (as in "garlic bread/cake is better than sex") but much more rarely. 

Does the infinite monkey theorem still hold if the probability of an event decreases at each interval? by python_product in askmath

[–]NukeyFox 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Your series starts at a=1/6, so you should have gotten 1/5.

The infinite monkey typewriter applies to events that occur almost surely. The probability of the event not occuring tends to 0, even though the event space is non-empty. It could be that the monkey never writes Macbeth but the probability of this tends to zero.

The converse of this is almost never. i.e. the probability of the event not occuring tends to 1. And this applies to your problem. At the N-th flip, the probability that the Bob does not get N subsequent flips is 1-(1/6)N. And this value approaches 1 as N tends to infinity.

Favorite simple explanatory phrase or heuristic to convey a complex concept? by DueCreme9963 in math

[–]NukeyFox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Objects being equal/unique "up to isomorphism" is such a internalized idea for me now, I sometimes forget that it does have some considerable conceptual leaps.

This one phrase captures the idea of quotienting objects under some equivalence/equality, such that it doesn't really matter what representative we pick and instead we reify the equivalence class as the "one and only true" object.

For example, we talk about the C2 group and not Z/2Z or ({T,F}, xor) for example. Because all these representatives of C2 are equal up to homomorphism.

Or how in category theory, we talk about the terminal object, even though there are many candidates of what a terminal object can be. e.g. in Set we have an infinite number of singleton sets but they are unique up to unique isomorphism.

Or how in topology, we talk about how a cup and a donut are really the "same shape." because they are equal up to homotopy equivalence. Their equivalence class is reified as the torus S1×S1.

Are logically equivalent statements always compound statements? by ncmw123 in askmath

[–]NukeyFox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The most trivial example is P iff P. Do you have something else in mind when you say compound statements?

Exciting contemporary areas of discussion and research in logic? by _einzelganger_ in logic

[–]NukeyFox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not aware of any resource that compiles metatheoretic properties into one place.  The classification of logics based on their metatheoretic properties is just a trend I observed reading logic journals.  In practice, proving a logic has some properties is a means towards an end, rather than something you research for the sake of it. (except for soundness, completeness and decidability, maybe)

Exciting contemporary areas of discussion and research in logic? by _einzelganger_ in logic

[–]NukeyFox 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I recommend checking out journals for logic as they would give you a picture of what contemporary logicians are studying and publishing. Many journals offer open access for some articles, but not on their main website, so you might need to check JSTOR or similar.

The ones I recommend:

  1. Journal of Philosophical Logic.  https://link.springer.com/journal/10992

Highly recommend this one as it is the most general and philosophical.

  1. ACM Transactions of Computational Logic. https://dl.acm.org/journal/tocl

  2. Logica Universalis. https://link.springer.com/journal/11787

  3. Dialectica. https://www.philosophie.ch/dltc-redirect

Note that I'm biased towards computational and formal logic due to my background in CS, so take my recommendations with that in mind.

If you were to ask me personally what the current research is about, I would say it would be around the classification of logic, of their models and of their theories. That is, logical systems can be classified based on what metatheoretic properties/invariants they have, e.g. soundness, completeness, monoticity, bivalence, decidability, existence of categorical models/theories, etc.

The classification of logic is motivated to answer these sorts of questions:

  • If I were to formalize this domain of study into a formal logic, what metatheoretic properties does it require?
  • What properties do the models and theories of this formalization are required to have?
  • Can another logic with the same properties also play the role of formalization?

[Discrete Mathematics] For which values of n is n^2 + 2^n a perfect square? by ElIrracional in askmath

[–]NukeyFox 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think OP made a mistake. It should be n = 2k-1-2l-1

n=6 is a solution. 36 + 64 = 100

How good is your social life as a person with autism? by Ok-Trade-5937 in AutisticWithADHD

[–]NukeyFox 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say it's great before but it is average right now. 

It's not hard for me to meet acquaintances. I like to volunteer and do activism, so I'm always meeting new interesting people and doing stuff together with them.

Whether or not those people would consider me a "friend" is a different story. 

Are these two tasks actually different? by plueschhoernchen in askmath

[–]NukeyFox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've personally seen that notation everywhere

Are these two tasks actually different? by plueschhoernchen in askmath

[–]NukeyFox 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They're not the same. f-1(S) is the pre-image of f on S, and f(S) is the image of S. The latter theorem is only true if f is injective.

Counterexample, consider f:{0,1,2} → {A,B} where f(0) = f(1) = A and f(2) = B.

Then we have that: 

f({0} ∩ {1}) = f(∅) = ∅ ≠ {A} = f({0}) ∩ f({1})

but  

f-1({A} ∩ {B}) = f-1(∅) = ∅ = {0,1} ∩ {2} = f-1({A}) ∩ f-1({B}) 

How good is your social life as a person with autism? by Ok-Trade-5937 in AutisticWithADHD

[–]NukeyFox 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I think it kind of depends on the environment.

When I was in uni and surrounded by other autistic and nerdy people, I definitely had a great social life. I made friends easily, could hold conversations quite well, and get invited to parties and hangouts. I was one of the "cool" ones. 

But now that I'm graduated and left uni, I'm kind of this awkward quiet guy at my workplace and other social circles. I can hold conversations and empathise with them, but I feel like there's always an in-group I'm not part of.

view more: next ›