Here is another puzzle.
Can you take ten points, forming the vertices of five convex quadrilaterals in three dimensions, such that every quadrilateral intersects each of the other four at a vertex? Solution
Dan_Moore
Karma: 286
I’m not seeing why atheism is included in the post title.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
I answered my own question on Math Stack Exchange, and thus avoided a pocket veto, wherein a question gets deleted if it has a negative vote total and no answer after 30 days.
The phrenology guy isn’t showing up on the homepage for me. Did LW take him off?
I completed the survey & had to look up the normative ethics choices (again). Also cisgender. I cooperated with the prisoner’s dilemma puzzle & estimated that a majority of respondents would also do so, given the modest prize amount.
Also, based on my estimate of a year in Newton’s life in last year’s survey, I widened my confidence intervals.
I’ve worked it out, and now I’m not sure that this function is OEIS-worthy (although it’s at least as worthy as Jenny’s constant). I will definitely post a question on Math StackExchange, and not answer it (if even necessary) for a month or two, in honor of my namesake.
Here is a link to the question.
Here is a link to a related question that is more fun.
I am calculating the first several terms of a combinatorial function that is useful in the counting of certain elements of a polytope I’m studying. The combinatorial function has three integer parameters, so it forms a tetrahedral array. It’s not in OEIS.
I have a recursive means of calculating the function. Next, I’m going to figure out the function as a rational expression in integers i, j, k. Then, I’ll post it on Math Stackexchange. Then, I’ll submit it to OEIS.
Another possible interpretation:
Disagree with the post; can’t personally refute it, but believe that someone who shares my views (and is more knowledgeable) could.
Like me (back in the day), I think a lot of students do not choose their instructor, just the courses.
I like that this thread provides an incentive to finish a project so that you can brag about it.
As this is the first bragging thread, even if this happened over a month ago, it should be admissible. (Heck, even if it weren’t the first bragging thread.)
It must be this you are referring to. Congratulations!
One option you can rule out: Excel RAND(), because it’s not random.
Two-boxers think that decisions are things that can just fall out of the sky uncaused.
It seems that 2-boxers make this assumption, whereas some 1-boxers (including me) apply a Popperian approach to selecting a model of reality consistent with the empirical evidence.
It seems to me that there is backward causation under the decoherence interpretation, as the world we inhabit is affected by the experimental set-up (there’s either a diffraction pattern on the back screen characteristic of a wave, or a pattern characteristic of a single slit). I really think people tend to overestimate the latitude that exists among the various quantum interpretations. They are just interpretations, after all.
I don’t think that Omega knowing a person better than they know themselves is sufficient to explain the 100% accuracy of Omega’s prediction.
It may be that two-boxers perceive the key issue as the (im)possibility of backwards causation. However, Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment demonstrates what seems to me to be backwards causation. Because backwards causation is not categorically impossible, I’m a one-boxer.
Gil Kalai also has a nice blog.
Actually, I hadn’t checked this site in a while. There is some awesome stuff there, including some questions probably of interest to many LWers.
The list of LessWrong Jargon contains plenty of non-neologisms like that.
ADBOC?
Yes, exactly.