To be fair, the guerrilla war that followed the occupation is, indeed, very costly

You do not know the right people I see

Also “break” can have multiple definitions. Like say, physically…

I know computability theory, and I am very familiar with the halting problem. A human cannot solve it either. We made literal mathematical proof of it, and that proof is the halting problem.

The entire point of the halting problem is that if you assume that there is a black box that can answer whether a program halts, you then prove it can’t be the case by a proof of contradiction. You can replace the black box with a human brain and it works just as well, that’s the entire point of a black box.

There’s nothing that indicates the human brain has super-turing computation

No, I am.

https://youtube.com/shorts/G1nKTfbzr4s?is=FqXeuOIwVPlG7qv0

Their goal is to have no ways to bypass it. Sure, it’s an ideal that might not hold up, but they will keep trying over and over and over again

Backed up by server-side authorization, and supported by powerful entities such as banks or governments. They will not stop trying

They want no competition. They want consumers to have devices, that are necessary for them to have in the modern world, that are locked down and under control of corporate or state entities. It’s surveillance capitalism combined with police states

It’s the cyberpunk future

It really is a funny feeling, where it looks genuinely awesome (in the literal sense) but at the same time is also horrifically destructive

Yeah, users might get a bit upset about “abrasive devs” but like, as you said, it’s devs that give their free time and energy into developing the project. Users honestly ought to respect that a lot more

Maths is so much more malleable and abstract than what you think it is. You really do not understand maths as well as you think you do, and I feel a bit sad for any student of yours that would wish to explore some deeper revelations of maths, just to be told “nope! That’s just how it is!” with no further thinking at all.

A lot of maths is chosen. Choices with good motivation, but choices nonetheless. So long as there not being contradictions or paradoxes, the formulation of a form of math is valid. Which is why you have different forms of maths with different rules.

And you really could use some more humility, it’s obnoxious when you act all so high and mighty and arrogant, with no interest in questioning your assumptions. Devolving into ridiculing the person you’re discussing with and a general vibe of “omfg I’m right you fucking idiot because I’m right how dumb can you get??”

Like, what is it that you want here, a book from the 700s of the one dude that invented arithmetics and told clearly “I chose this.”? You are making your arguments effectively unfalsifiable by just going “Nuh uh” all the time.

Get some humility and learn a bit about the foundations of maths. Like. Down to set theory. See for yourself what actually is the foundation. And, spoiler, it’s not a high school textbook. Hopefully I do not need to tell you how concepts are simplified for younger students, instead of overwhelming them with the complete knowledge of a subject.

I mean, it is pretty clear here that you do not really understand the purpose of notation, nor what maths is. Notation is just a constructed language to convey a mathematical idea, it’s malleable

And yeah, it’s easy to just say “this page is wrong!” without any further argument. Nothing you referenced proved the convention as law, and neither is there any mathematical basis for any proof, because it simply is nonsensical to “prove” a notation. Have another source for this being convention https://www.themathdoctors.org/order-of-operations-why/ or https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/884765/mathematical-proof-for-order-of-operations. If you want a book about this, then there’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronshtein_and_Semendyayev that is cited by wikipedia. I’m sure you could also find stuff about this in a set theory book. Though good luck understanding them without sufficient experience in high-level maths

Really though, maths is so much more than “3+5=8 because that’s the correct answer!” But why is it the correct answer? In what context? What is the definition of addition? How can you prove that 1+1=2 from fundamental axioms? This is harder to answer than you might think.

That’s a very simplistic view of maths. It’s convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Just because a definition of an operator contains another operator, does not require that operator to take precedence. As you pointed out, 2+3*4 could just as well be calculated to 5*4 and thus 20. There’s no mathematical contradiction there. Nothing broke. You just get a different answer. This is all perfectly in line with how maths work.

You can think of operators as functions, in that case, you could rewrite 2+3*4 as add(2, mult(3, 4)), for typical convention. But it could just as well be mult(add(2, 3), 4), where addition takes precedence. Or, similarly, for 2*3+4, as add(mult(2, 3), 4) for typical convention, or mult(2, add(3, 4)), where addition takes precedence. And I hope you see how, in here, everything seems to work just fine, it just depends on how you rearrange things. This sort of functional breakdown of operators is much closer to mathematical reality, and our operators is just convention, to make it easier to read.

Something in between would be requiring parentheses around every operator, to enforce order. Such as (2+(3*4)) or ((2+3)*4)

The rules are socially agreed upon. They are not a mathematical truth. There is nothing about the order of multiple different operators in the definition of the operators themselves. An operator is simply just a function or mapping, and you can order those however you like. All that matters is just what calculation it is that you’re after

I mean, arithmetic order is just convention, not a mathematical truth. But that convention works in the way we know, yes, because that’s what’s… well… convention

Using word for a thesis sounds like a nightmare I would never dare to do

For big projects like that, stuff like LaTeX is so much better in my experience, you could even set up version control for it with, say, git, or similar

Due to the cooking XP potential in the uncooked chicken

I suppose when you make a ring out of natural rust it will break in not too long

Cope - funny

Me too post card… me too

Sugar free soy milk is the best imo. Oat milk is too sweet