EffortPostMcGee [any]

  • 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: January 13th, 2023

help-circle

  • I’m not really confused about what you’re saying here exactly, and since the original post is deleted, I can’t really even see what was originally said, but I was confused about this:

    (like the real number that that sequence converges to given the standard topology of the space of real numbers).

    Why make mention of the standard topology here exactly? It’s not exactly clear to me why this has anything to do with what you two are discussing.






  • And for the purposes of traversing our globe a 3rd dimension is unnecessary so why include that in your model?

    How would you begin to describe points in the spaces we are discussing? I feel this is a fair question, because in an earlier reply you suggest to picking a point and walking there.

    For the surface of a sphere, the most natural way many people would choose to do this would be using the tuples (x,y,z) in R3 and restricting this space to a subspace by the equation X2 + Y2 + Z2 = r2, were r is the radius of the sphere. Give a model which can describe points and lines on the surface of a sphere with less than 3 dimensions; i.e., define a space for the surface of a sphere with fewer than 3 dimensions.

    The problems with trying to do this by defining a conformal map from 2 dimensional projective spaces to 3 dimensional surfaces is the reason whole books are written about projective geometry.

    And even if, its blatantly obvious that the OOP is asking for a straight line in a 2d perspective, not on a map, but on the globe itself because any projection of a globe into a flat space will take the straightness out of a straight line.

    This doesn’t make sense. Which projection? The natural one? Such a map is guaranteed to not be a bijection and is potentially not well-defined. Without a clear way of doing this map, you can’t say anything about what happens to lines under the image of such a map.

    No we dont live in a 3d space. That’s a mathematical model used to model reality so as to be able to ignore details deemed unecessary for whatever the model is for. It’s a tool to approximate reality not reality itself.

    I agree with this at least, I too am tired of the mathematical platonism dominating the public discourse.



  • So are you saying that in your opinion, all nuclear reactors, which includes this one developed by this team of researchers and engineers, are unsafe because you’ve seen the careless disposition of other people in the workplace(s) that you worked in? What exactly about this qualifies you to make all the other claims you’re making?

    But, why has no one pointed out the obvious chauvinism or overt racism in your comment? You are saying that no nuclear reactor designed thus far has been safe, and therefore this one made in China must also be unsafe, or that these scientists and engineers in China must be lying or over hyping the claims they are making. Concerning the technical limitations you are trying to gesture at, you can only come to the conclusion you are coming to if you think that there is something about China, or Chinese people, that forbids it from doing science and engineering better than wherever you come from. Concerning the only thing of substance you make a claim of knowledge for, you are saying that there is something about China or Chinese workers that forbids them from actually giving a fuck about their jobs as nuclear reactor technicians, scientists, and engineers, such that they strictly could not design safer processes or conduct themselves in an appropriately professional way better than wherever you come from.

    Moreover, I don’t really understand why you think other people should listen to your perspective on the matter when you have put basically 0 effort within your comment to give any real justification. Essentially you are saying “I worked with these things, so just simply trust me.”