Will_Sawin comments on Rationality Quotes: June 2011 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Oscar_Cunningham 01 June 2011 08:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (470)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 14 June 2011 04:53:38PM 0 points [-]

(Assuming that individual value is nonnegative.)

Comment author: orthonormal 14 June 2011 06:45:57PM -1 points [-]

That's an emendation, not the original; in most of his mid-to-late works, he really does mean that the absolute magnitude of a character, without reference to its direction, is of value.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 14 June 2011 06:49:34PM 0 points [-]

But certainly the people who believe in the $L^1$ norm don't take the absolute value...

Comment author: [deleted] 14 June 2011 07:33:52PM *  2 points [-]

What? The L^1 norm is the integral of the absolute value of the function.

In this thread: people using mathematics where it doesn't belong.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 14 June 2011 08:07:05PM 1 point [-]

I should say:

No one believes in the $L^1$ norm. There is only Nietzsche, who believes in $L_\infty$, and utilitarians, who believe in the integral.

In this thread: people using mathematics where it doesn't belong.

I suppose. It's a more efficient and fun form of communication then writing it out in English, but it loses big on the number of people who can understand it.

Comment author: orthonormal 14 June 2011 11:37:55PM *  1 point [-]

No one believes in the $L^1$ norm. There is only Nietzsche, who believes in $L_\infty$, and utilitarians, who believe in the integral.

Yes, that's what I should have written.

Comment author: orthonormal 14 June 2011 11:39:45PM 0 points [-]

I know how it looked when you jumped in (presumably from the Recent Comments page), but both of us did know the proper math- it's the analogy that we were ironing out.

Comment author: [deleted] 14 June 2011 11:48:23PM 0 points [-]

I read from the start of the L^p talk to now, and I can't think why both of you bothered to speak in that language. The major point of contention occurs in a lacuna in the L^p semantic space, so continuing in that vein is... hmmm.

It's like arguing whether the moon is pale-green or pale-blue, and deciding that since plain English just doesn't cut it, why not discuss the issue in Japanese?

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 15 June 2011 02:29:39AM *  0 points [-]

deciding that since plain English just doesn't cut it, why not discuss the issue in Japanese?

Why not, if you know Japanese, and it has more suitable means of expressing the topic? (I see your point, but don't think the analogy stands as stated.)

Comment author: [deleted] 15 June 2011 02:59:25AM *  0 points [-]

If we extend the analogy to the above conversation, it's an argument between non-Japanese otaku.