Speaking of Tarski's theorem: http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/probability-theory-and-the-undefinability-of-truth/ … http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf … Probabilistic logic as a way around Tarski? Also, note coauthor.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@St_Rev occurred to me that this is why we have research communities. takes several hours to figure out what’s wrong with a paper; too many1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@St_Rev so you email four friends ‘has anyone read that probabilistic inference paper?’ and someone says ‘yeah it’s bogus’. distributes work1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
@St_Rev since 99/100 papers are nonsense, all you want is the one-bit answer most of the time, unless it fails in an interesting way1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@St_Rev mit bio dept had a grad course that amounted to ‘how to figure out what’s wrong with a paper as fast as possible.’1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
@St_Rev the contents were considered highly secret and they wouldn’t allow anyone outside the dept to know anything about it. frustrating.1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@St_Rev i think this is an important skill that everyone needs to learn, and haven’t heard of its being taught anywhere else.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@Meaningness Man I wish I'd had a course like that. I can do it with newspaper stories but that's kindergarten level.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.