No, the original paper is saying something like: given the sequence say 12 -> 3 -> 7, there is a sequence 12 -> 3x -> 7x -> 7x + 3x -> 7x + 3x + 4x where 7x+3x+4x = 12. Obviously here x=6/7, but doing something like this with arbitrary rotations in 3D isn’t so simple.
If you’re referring to doing moves on a Rubik’s cube, no that’s irrelevant to the theorem. If you’re referring to applying a sequence of rotations to a whole solid cube, then yes.
The example given in the OP is incorrect. /u/gameryamen is implying something like: given a sequence of rotations W there is a scale factor a>0 such that W(a)W(a)W = 1, with W(a) the same sequence of rotations as W but with all rotation angles scaled by a.
This is not what the paper does. The paper finds an a such that W(a)W(a) = 1.
His whole post seems bunk, honestly. Example:
Having one more shot in your follow up acts as kind of a hinge, opening up more possibilities.
This seems completely irrelevant. It seems that maybe they’re referring to the probabilistic argument the authors give to justify why their theorem should be true (before giving a complete proof), but this argument involves repeating the same exact rotation two times, not two different rotations in sequence.
They use continuity and the fact that F(0) = 1 to conclude that, since it also takes on a negative value (what they put effort into arguing), it must also attain 0. So no, they don’t find it directly, but it is technically possible to express F explicitly and then numerically find a root.
Should be Steam/logs, with Steam your Steam folder where e.g. steamapps is.
I’ve had an issue with controllers before because Steam’s udev rules straight up give the wrong permissions to the device files they create. Check Steam logs, there’s one specifically for controllers if I remember correctly (or maybe it was a generic “console” log) and it should be very clear if this is the issue because there will be a permission error recorded.
Yes, “quantum teleportation” just means transfering a quantum state from one location to another without knowing what that state is, in the same sense that you can copy a file from one place to another without knowing its contents. So it’s just a particular kind of information being transfered, not anything about how quickly it’s transfered. There is a lot of awful terminology in quantum mechanics.
This sentence is shit, but I want to point out at least that “magic” is jargon for “well-behaved” or “particularly well-suited (for our application)”. It’s essentially “magic” like in the phrase “it works like magic”.
All the successful theories were developed from experimental results
The more I think about this, the more I’m not sure I 100% agree… For example, special relativity essentially came from the observation that Maxwell’s equations were not Galilean invariant, and instead invariant under this weird other group (what we now call the Lorentz group); and QED essentially came from Dirac wanting to take a “square root” of the Klein-Gordan equation.
(Of course, real history is more intricate than this.)
This is not about the same article nor the same authors.
I think probably people get wrapped up in the art and music, and rightfully so. But (having more that 100% completion, mind you) there were aspects of the level design and bosses that really did not sit well with me. I couldn’t help but feel like “it’s just Metroid but worse” in a lot of aspects.
Assuming that 99% of them are hoaxes, clout chasers, or misidentified phenomena, that still leaves 1% of all those videos to be true.
Yes, if you assume something is true then you can conclude that it is true.
Ahhh, ok. Thank you, my fault for not reading carefully.
Where are you seeing “blockchain”? Looking through the (scant) documentation on GitHub, they explicitly do not use blockchain: https://github.com/plebbit/docs/blob/master/docs/learn/intro.md “Running a full node takes a few seconds, since there is no blockchain to sync.”
Another link someone gave: “We propose solving the data problem by not using a blockchain…” https://github.com/plebbit/whitepaper/discussions/2
I was responding to “Look at an image for a second. Can you only remember 10 things about it?” I didn’t think that was a fair characterization. I see you probably specifically meant 10 yes/no questions about an image, but I don’t think yes/no questions are a fair proxy for “things”.
In any case you can read the preprint here https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10234v2 and they make it immediately clear that 10 bits/s is an order-of-magnitude estimate, and also specifically list (for example) object recognition at 30-50 bits/s.
10 bits means 2^(10) = 1024 different things can be encoded.
The stuff about “w” is wrong, but there’s a good reason you would think this. The lip shape for the “w” sound in English and Japanese is different; in English the shape is like English “u”, and in Japanese the shape is like Japanese “u”, but you definitely shouldn’t have an actual “u” sound.
in the same way the English version lets out a bit of air before the W itself.
I think, especially considering your comment about ホワイト howaito, that you’re confusing two things. There are English dialects which have two separate “w”-like sounds, one of which is typically written “wh” and the other “w”. (To my ear, this distinctiln also sounds old-fashioned.) In these dialects, “w” as in “water” and “wood” is pronounced like you would expect, whereas “wh” as in “who” and “what” is pronounced somewhat like an “h” sound followed by just-“w” sound. I don’t think the “wh” sound is used for all instances of “w” in any dialect; in fact, most dialects have just the “w” sound.
BTW to help appreciate the difference, when the Japanese try to emulate the English W sound they add a ho first, as in howaito (white).
This is false, they only do this for “wh” sounds (and maybe not even for all of them). Counterexamples to your claim are easy: ウェイトレス weitoresu = waitress, ワット watto = watt, etc.
Uhhh… ok dude. I really doubt anyone “has to” learn this, as long as they learn to hear pitch accent I’m sure anyone can pick it up “naturally”. I spend my time learning this sort of stuff because it’s cool and interesting.
Read the actual actual article: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14367
The authors prove that given any sequence of rotations W “almost always” there is a sequence of rotations W’ formed by scaling every rotation angle in W by the same positive factor, such that the sequence W’W’ is the identity (that is, apply all the rotations in W’ and then apply all of them again).
The issue isn’t the result, it’s popsci writing.