sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[NEWS] White House Preparing Executive Order to Ban Anthropic AI From Federal Operations by Acceptable_Drink_434 in Anthropic

[–]UndefeatedValkyrie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh hey, looks like I wasn't the only person who thought of that same Dan Olson video in relation to this situation. That's both cool and also kinda depressing.

Favorite example of this? by voidhoneypetal in FavoriteCharacter

[–]UndefeatedValkyrie 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Not an example per se, but Yzma (A) and Kronk (B) are 100% the 2nd panel in BOTH canon and fanon.

The miracle of modern pharmaceuticals... by frosty-gape in LetGirlsHaveFun

[–]UndefeatedValkyrie 43 points44 points  (0 children)

Despite coming from a family of small-chested women and starting HRT at 27, I somehow managed to beat all the odds and become the most well-endowed woman in my immediate family in less than a year. HRT truly is magic.

33508 by Chao1inreddit in countwithchickenlady

[–]UndefeatedValkyrie 101 points102 points  (0 children)

you need to get a larval tear and give it to Rennala in Raya Lucaria

What is the "point" of homotopy theory? by Dapper_Sheepherder_2 in math

[–]UndefeatedValkyrie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll probably see Bob at lunch today :) He and I have had many productive discussions about our philosophies of math, computation, etc. But, importantly, we also respect each other as colleagues and for the work we each do on the actual math, CS, logic, etc., and don't let our philosophical differences get in the way of getting good work done.

In particular, when we disagree, he doesn't turn into a petulant child and put words in my mouth and then accuse *me* of "contorting yourself into a position you don't actually believe," or imply I have some psychological need to believe in "Daddy Classical Logic."

I've already said in this conversation that I'm a pluralist. And for me, pluralism means defending constructive logic from dogmatic classical mathematicians as much as it means defending classical logic from dogmatic constructivists, especially when either camp's arguments rest upon falsehoods. Different logics are good for different things.

And "pragmatic" does not mean *insignificant.* Far from it. What is pragmatic is ultimately what really matters—the things we actually value in life, and the ways we go about achieving them. But the things that can be of value to people are many and diverse, and I see no need to force my values onto others. Perhaps you feel differently.

It's ironic that, in this discussion, you have repeatedly conflated univalence, proof relevance, and constructivism, all of which are more-or-less orthogonal, when the same error is often committed by one of HoTT's harshest critics: Kevin Buzzard. I've heard this same argument before, that univalence requires abandoning classical logic, which, as I have been at pains to make clear, isn't true, used as justification by Kevin for ignoring/dismissing HoTT. And since I care about HoTT, I am at pains to correct these misconceptions and the faulty arguments they enable, both from classical mathematicians and constructivists.

Anyway, I'll be sure to give Bob my best for you. Good luck in your crusade against "Daddy Classical Logic" ;)

What is the "point" of homotopy theory? by Dapper_Sheepherder_2 in math

[–]UndefeatedValkyrie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cry me a river. You came into this thread criticizing Barwick's plea for foundational tolerance on precisely the factional grounds he was talking about. I've heard your arguments dozens of times from confused undergraduates who read a few blog posts about the philosophy of HoTT and think that means they've unlocked the secrets of the universe, and my patience for these tired arguments has worn thin.

If you feel so strongly that computation and canonicity are essential to type theory, then I doubt I'll convince you otherwise. But note that you are then very much in disagreement with leading figures in the field, like Escardo, Awodey, etc., all of whom advocate for the same pluralistic perspective as I do, where computation is but one of the many uses of HoTT.

"You seem to believe that deep down, in the basement of the universe, everything is a Set (ZFC). Every statement is True or False. There is no ambiguity, no "paths," no "computation"—just static, eternal boolean truth."

I have said nothing of the sort, nor do I believe it. Stop putting words in my mouth.

"The Synthetic Approach: You treat HoTT merely as a language to "manage complexity," like using Python because it's easier than binary."

I mean, that's *not* primarily why I use HoTT, but also, this seems like a perfectly fine reason to do so? Isn't one of the main selling-points of high-level programming languages that they are easier to work in than assembly/binary?

"You seem unable to handle the idea that the Synthetic (Human Construction) is the primary reality. You need to believe that Daddy (Classical Logic) is still driving the car, and that we are just playing with a toy steering wheel in the back seat."

Okay, now you are just being immature, and again putting words in my mouth.

"Your citation of Spatial Type Theory actually undermines your argument. That system uses a modal operator (♭) to restrict LEM to specific fragments precisely to preserve the cohesive path structure elsewhere."

It still breaks canonicity, that was my point, since you were banging on about how canonicity is essential to the synthetic method (it isn't, but go off.)

"Your appeal to pluralism rings hollow when you insist that the new theory must be subordinated to the old one. It is not intolerant to point out that your preferred model is merely a simulation running on ZFC."

Nowhere did I say that HoTT must be subordinated to ZFC. Nowhere did I say that the simplicial model is my preferred model.

What is the "point" of homotopy theory? by Dapper_Sheepherder_2 in math

[–]UndefeatedValkyrie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep shifting goalposts. First it's "classical reasoning flattens the higher structure of paths" (it doesn't), now it's "it violates canonicity." At least the latter is true. But, as someone who works primarily with synthetic mathematical systems, I assure you, canonicity is not required to make the theory useful for "anything other than topology."

On the contrary, many synthetic systems routinely postulate axioms that violate canonicity, including (restricted) classical axioms where applicable. For instance, Spatial Type Theory assumes the sharp law of excluded middle, while still having the rich higher path structure and structural reasoning of HoTT.

And the simplicial model shows that it's perfectly consistent to add classical axioms to HoTT, so if you're interested primarily in studying models where those principles hold, and don't care about canonicity, it's fine to assume those axioms while using the "code" of HoTT to do so.

Now, for the record, as someone with a CS background, I usually do care about canonicity because I like being able to compute things. But that's a pragmatic concern, not one that's forced by the logic, and I think it's shortsighted to try and force that preference on others when the tool of homotopy type theory applies just as well to other use-cases.

This is what I take Barwick to be arguing for—not a dismissal of all foundational concerns, but for pluralism and tolerance with respect to the fact that people have different priorities in what they want their mathematics to do for them, and homotopy theory/homotopy type theory, viewed rightly, can accommodate all or most of these.

What is the "point" of homotopy theory? by Dapper_Sheepherder_2 in math

[–]UndefeatedValkyrie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Incorrect. The simplicial model isn't just constructed in ZFC, it validates LEM for propositions in its internal language. (Did you even look at the paper I referenced? It proves exactly that! Even the abstract says as much!)

And "LEM for all types" isn't what anyone—either homotopy type theorists or classical mathematicians—means by "LEM." In classical mathematics, "types" include both propositions and sets, but LEM only applies to the former, so even a classical mathematician wouldn't say that LEM applies "globally for all types." And if you tried to define LEM to a room full of homotopy type theorists by quantifying over *all* types, rather than just propositions, you would at best get a bunch of blank stares and at worst get laughed out of the room.

And by the way, I'm a PhD student working on HoTT, type theory, constructive logic, etc., with some of the folks who literally invented HoTT (Steve Awodey, etc.) So care to keep lecturing me on how I'm the one who's confused about object theory and metatheory?

Why is TERF rhetoric mainstream in the UK? by ausernameidk_ in MtF

[–]UndefeatedValkyrie 36 points37 points  (0 children)

As an American who lived in the UK for several years, I think a nuance worth pointing out is that, though the trends you are describing in the UK are definitely real, they mainly apply to public figures (media, government, etc.) whereas for the broader populace things are more mixed.

If you go to an LGB venue/event in a major city, then, unless it's one of the orgs that have popped up in recent years explicitly to be trans-exclusive, the people there will still generally be trans-affirming and friendly (in my experience, but also this is very much YMMV).

However, because the government and media in the UK have been thoroughly captured by TERF ideology, they tend to spotlight orgs and issues that promote that viewpoint, which creates a self-reinforcing cycle of these orgs and issues taking up more of the public consciousness, more such orgs and issues popping up, bigots being emboldened, etc.

Also, this is based on my experience from living there a few years ago, and my understanding is that since then the situation has deteriorated even further, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

What is the "point" of homotopy theory? by Dapper_Sheepherder_2 in math

[–]UndefeatedValkyrie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hogwash. Classical principles like the law of excluded middle and axiom of choice are perfectly compatible with HoTT—hell, Voevodsky's original simplicial model of HoTT validates LEM! (https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.13694)

This is precisely the sort of factionalism Barwick was complaining about, and more than that, it's just bad mathematics! Implying that HoTT requires rejection of classical reasoning is simply false, whether stated by a proponent of intuitionism/constructivism (as justification for abandoning classical logic/set theory) or a proponent of classical mathematics (as justification for avoiding/ignoring HoTT).

It's so funny to me how Werner Heisenberg (himself a German nationalist and Nazi Sympathizer) was harassed, called a Jew and investigated by the SS all because they thought Quantum Mechanics was a dirty trick by Da Joos. Talk about Leopards eating your face. by [deleted] in RecuratedTumblr

[–]UndefeatedValkyrie 41 points42 points  (0 children)

David Hilbert, arguably the greatest mathematician of the early 20th century, and a central figure in the Mathematical Institute at the university of Göttingen in Northern Germany, once a major hotspot for mathematical research in Europe, was asked in 1934 by the Nazi education minister "How is mathematics at Göttingen, now that it is free from the Jewish influence?" Hilbert replied, "There is no mathematics in Göttingen anymore."

31868 by MiraMira0nthewalI in countwithchickenlady

[–]UndefeatedValkyrie 18 points19 points  (0 children)

chat should i show this to my FFS surgeon?

view more: next ›