96
Terminal case of TechBro Brain
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
96 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
190 readers
378 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 3 weeks ago
MODERATORS
The one veritasium video I watched was about the Incompleteness Theorem. Since it was just about a math topic I don't think there was anything to shill, and I thought it was well done (not a mathematician, cannot assess it in that way). But then I see the other videos recommended now and again and they typically look like bait 'n bro.
Theorem: Any lay explanation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems is either incomplete or inconsistent.
Proof: :made-it-the-fuck-up:
I'm only sour about these because it's one of those things like string theory or "0.999...=1" that attracts almost exclusively cranks who want to use whatever details they internalized from the NATOpedia page and use it to explain why orgones are real or whatever.
I know I'd need to do a deep dive to actually understand the theorem, so I've trained myself to actively reject any information about it because I assume it would be wrong.
Are you familiar with the Metamath project? https://us.metamath.org/mm.html
They don't have a complete proof of Godel's incompleteness theorems yet but I feel like I must plug them anyway lol
It's an ongoing attempt to express and formalize all of mathematics via a massive collection of theorems defined as rules to rewrite the basest axioms of formal mathematics into the theorems to be proved (although in practice you usually start with your theorem and work backwards in Metamath). For any theorem in the database you want to get an understanding of, you can look at the rewriting rules which are expressed as a series of steps to understand why a theorem is true. Or if something is hard to believe you can at least look at the computer-verified proof and safely accept a theorem as true by the rules of the system :3
Has been rly useful to me as someone interested in learning about abstract math but not having a place to start
For example here are the proofs for 0.999 = 1 and 2 + 2 = 4
https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/0.999....html
https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/2p2e4.html
This is cool, I'll check it out
I'd heard he was good but my first taste was that video and it's like 💀 not even subtle shilling.
If you're a very math oriented person I think you probably wouldn't like anything he makes for being too surface level. If you're interested in math but haven't done math beyond maybe an undergrad level, his math history videos are both gorgeously animated and pretty compelling in narrative so they help carry across the concepts. All the other videos tend to be slop.
Yeah it would probably be lost on me but it's absolutely something my bf would love so I'm recommending it to him
His channel has settled into a rhythm of doing 1 really good, gorgeous video on math or physics, then a horrible slop video that's often just a commercial for some company. If you can pick up on the vibe of which one you're watching at any time, you need only waste 30 or so seconds before you skip the ones that aren't worthwhile.