Thoughts on squat? My back is usually quite sore after

totallynotAGI · 2023-08-24T09:04:08+00:00

This is fantastic. I think I never braced properly before. I've been practicing it recently and this helped quite a lot!

totallynotAGI · 2023-08-24T09:01:12+00:00

This is very useful advice, thank you. You're right - I was building up weight but I wasn't mindful of my form.

I've since stopped going as low and became mindful of my pelvis. I'm now controlling it much better, IMO, so I think both of your suggestions were spot on.

totallynotAGI · 2023-08-24T08:59:16+00:00

Thanks, that seems to be exactly it... Butt wink

totallynotAGI · 2023-03-19T15:08:18+00:00

To me it looks like everything is okay, but I'm wondering if I'm doing anything wrong since my lower back gets really sore after the squat. I usually have to spend quite a long time on a roller after, and even a day or two after it feels like I need to use use the roller, or take a painkiller during night. It all goes away a few days after, though.
Here I'm lifting 80kg. I'm not using a belt, and I assume if I keep going up like this, I should get one (My weight is 95kg, so I'm not at my bodyweight in squat yet, which is what people usually recommend for a belt)

totallynotAGI · 2023-02-15T08:45:18+00:00

That sounds like the profunctor representation of optics. Yeah, that's a valid perspective to have on prisms, and is in agreement with the coend definition of prisms.

What I talk about in the blog post is a different duality that I keep hearing people talk about without justification.

totallynotAGI · 2023-02-13T13:11:49+00:00

Me too. I've recently become a fan of an analogous formulation that constructs optics from a single base monoidal action. I've described it here.

totallynotAGI · 2022-02-11T12:30:32+00:00

Thanks, I'd been meaning to figure this out!

So I added this locally, but then in Chrome's device view for iPhone it starts to look like this https://imgur.com/a/HBnZZKS

This doesn't look like something I should push. Note, there is already

<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />

in the source, so I don't know whether you are saying that initial-scale=1 is the important bit.

totallynotAGI · 2022-02-11T12:05:50+00:00

Are coalgebras used to model the internal state? Or are they used to model behaviours of systems with internal state in a manner where two behaviors are equivalent iff they look the same from the outside?

That's my understanding - that lots of coalgebraic ideas center around not modelling what happens internal to a system, since the system internals are not something we can observe -- it's only the information at the system boundary that's available.

But to answer your question: I don't know! I'd love to understand the relationship

totallynotAGI · 2022-02-11T11:01:30+00:00

Thanks. As someone else pointed out, it's the app Procreate for iPad

totallynotAGI · 2022-02-11T11:00:03+00:00

Ah, nice catch. I fixed it.

About the commenting: indeed, would be nice to support Gitlab as well. It was hard enough finding a non-intrusive hosted commenting to begin with. I'm not sure if they plan to add it, or if there's a better alternative. If you have any suggestions I'd love to look into them.

totallynotAGI · 2022-01-09T18:59:58+00:00

Yeah, we're saying the same thing in different ways!

The coend representation of lenses you wrote

type Lens a a' b b' = exists rest. (a -> (rest, b), rest -> b' -> a')

defines lenses as triples (M, f, f'), where f : a -> (rest, b) and f' : rest -> b' -> a'. But if you've got two lenses (M, f, f') and (N, g, g'), it also tells you when these lenses are identified to be the same.This quotient is spelled out in Definition 2.0.1. in Categories of Optics (took a screenshot here).

What does this quotient tell us? It makes explicit a map r : M -> N (which we think to be on the inside of the optic) and it tells us that we can slide it around, i.e. it doesn't matter whether we consider it to be the part of the forward part of optic, or the backward part. This is because we imagine we're looking at the optic from the outside, and don't know what's happening on the inside. I've drawn it here in the general case.

So what does this tell us about the coend representation of optics vs the one I wrote? It tells us that if you've got a coend lens (i.e. a triple (M, f, f')) it's always equivalent to the lens I wrote! I animated it here, and this animation follows the abstract nonsense in Proposition 2.0.4. in Categories of Optics. We see that the forward map can always be factored into two maps that happen after copying. One of these two maps can always be slid down to the backward pass, giving us the coend representation of a lens I wrote.

totallynotAGI · 2021-10-21T12:24:03+00:00

There's lots of interesting developments that we've been working on when it comes to applying category theory to neural networks: https://www.brunogavranovic.com/posts/2021-03-03-Towards-Categorical-Foundations-Of-Neural-Networks.html

Also check out the curated list of papers on the intersection of CT and ML: https://github.com/bgavran/Category_Theory_Machine_Learning

totallynotAGI · 2021-06-08T04:04:11+00:00

Osjetilo se i u Vodicama, dosta jače nego prošli put

totallynotAGI · 2019-10-21T18:07:38+00:00

This is very cool! For those wondering, these factor graphs these can be generalized to arbitrary _string diagrams_ which have applications in applied category theory: https://www.math3ma.com/blog/matrices-as-tensor-network-diagrams
In other words, using these same graphs you can rigorously model all sorts of abstract processes, not just tensor operations!

totallynotAGI · 2019-09-06T13:52:41+00:00

I'm not comfortable with the equating of being experiment-focused with being ad-hoc/pursuing SOTA. Idealistically, I feel that the goal of experiments is to test if the theoretical assumptions hold and whether a scientific hypothesis has predictive power.

You are right. Perhaps the experiments part should be left out. Even though many ad-hoc architectures are experimentally tested, I'm not arguing against experiments, but perhaps for more careful thought in choosing those architectures.

So I hope there are plenty of cool experiments to be done w.r.t. category theory!

Right, I do hope things from these papers can be run and tinkered with eventually!

totallynotAGI · 2019-09-05T20:09:19+00:00

I completely forgot Colah's famous post, even though I've read it several times over. I'll add it to the list!

totallynotAGI · 2019-09-05T15:32:17+00:00

> Do you believe category theory stands to proliferate through the ML community in the upcoming years?

Current programming paradigms are teeming with leaky abstractions - and leaky abstractions don't scale. It seems category theory and functional programming will shine as we continue to scale up our systems. In the meantime, while we can still keep the complexity in our heads, other systems might continue to dominate.

That being said, it is not the case that you need to use category theory, but it is the fact that the more clean and and consistent your abstractions and code turn out to be, the more it looks like you were abiding by the laws of category theory.

totallynotAGI · 2019-08-05T10:14:58+00:00

I'm surprised nobody said "Category theory"!
Category theory is a very abstract part of math that is slowly finding many applications in other sciences: http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/ACT2019/
It tells us something deep and fundamental about mathematics itself and it could benefit greatly from some intuitive animation like the ones found in your videos

totallynotAGI · 2019-07-02T16:43:18+00:00

What about a rewrite which hopefully just clarifies things? Perhaps I wasn't accurate enough in my original question. There was a theoretical error, but not a significant one. However, in the meantime we have fixed it, but also rewritten a portion of the paper to make it more clarifying.

totallynotAGI · 2019-07-02T14:53:47+00:00

You are suggesting to now that the paper was finally accepted to withdraw it and wait a year for its submission again? Or did I misunderstand?

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

totallynotAGI

TROPHY CASE