It might as well be my own hand on the madman’s lever—and yet, while I grieve for all innocents, my soul is at peace, insofar as it’s ever been at peace about anything.

Psychopath.

  • corbin@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    14 days ago

    Gödel makes everyone weep. For tears of joy, my top pick is still Doug Hofstadter’s Gödel, Escher, Bach, which is suitable for undergraduates. Another strong classic is Raymond Smullyan’s To Mock a Mockingbird. Both of these dead-trees are worth it; I personally find myself cracking them open regularly for citations, quotes, and insights. For tears of frustration, the best way to fully understand the numerical machinery is Peter Smith’s An Introduction to Gödel’s Theorems, freely available online. These books are still receiving new editions, but any edition should suffice. If the goal is merely to ensure that the student can diagonalize, then the student can directly read Bill Lawvere’s 1968 paper Diagonal arguments & Cartesian closed categories with undergraduate category theory, but in any case they should also read Noson Yanofsky’s 2003 expository paper A universal approach to self-referential paradoxes, incompleteness & fixed points. The easiest options are at the beginning of the paragraph and the hardest ones are at the end; nonetheless any option will cover Cantor, Russell, Gödel, Turing, Tarski, and the essentials of diagonalization.

    I don’t know what to do about stuff like the Complexity Zoo. Their veterinarian is Greg Kuberberg, a decent guy who draws lots of diagrams. I took some photos myself when I last visited. But obviously it’s not an ideal situation for the best-known encyclopedia to be run by Aaronson and Habryka.

      • Soyweiser@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        They don’t even try to catch the page spammers? Ow god. (the account creation is hard to do something about, but the page spammers is just bad, in this case it is also bad because all the new accounts end with 4 numbers). Less than the bare minimum.

        (how are the very online, worried about robots killing everybody, have enough time to write book sized blogposts, so bad at this, when I was active trying to maintain a wiki I checked the recent changes somewhat regularly, for shame).

        Give me admin rights Scott, I can keep the toxic elements off my your wiki.

        • blakestacey@awful.systemsM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          13 days ago

          The very unscientific sampling I did just now suggests that those complexity classes which Wikipedia covers, it covers better than the Zoo does anything. Of course, the Zoo has room for #P/lowpoly and LOGWANK and all the other classes that are attested in one paper apiece.

          • Soyweiser@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            13 days ago

            See so the wiki should link, or even cache/include the oages from wikipedia that are better easy to do in mediawiki.

            Make me an admin Scott, I know mediawiki, and I can be trusted. Honest.

              • Soyweiser@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                12 days ago

                Yeah sadly my knowledge of recent research on complexity classes is almost non-existent and before that I was not the greatest at it in university.

              • corbin@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                12 days ago

                Sometimes the required writing style for nLab is a little restrictive. It’s not a good place to dump a bunch of info. Kind of opposite that, I also beefed up the esolangs list of complexity classes a while ago; it’s limited in scope and audience too, but folks usually find that style more accessible.

                I’m so jealous that you started the page for 24! I’ve only worked on niche topics and meanwhile you’ve got the most important numerology in all of combinatorics. I still need to rewrite that Jim Carrey movie 23 to be about 24; it’s on my list.