CarlShulman comments on Decoherence is Simple - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (57)
I see, thank you. Does it add too much noise if I ask such questions, should I rather not yet read the sequences if I sometimes have to inquire about such matters? Or should I ask somewhere else?
I was looking up this table of mathematical symbols that stated that ~ does read as 'has distribution' and stopped looking any further since I'm dealing with probabilities here. I guess it should have been obvious to me to expect a logical operator. I was only used to the notation not and ¬ as the negation of a proposition. I'll have to adjust my perceived intelligence downwards.
There's no problem with asking a clarifying question like that, which might help other lurkers and can be answered quickly without huge amounts of work.
By the way, there's no need for such self-deprecating comments about your education or intelligence. It's socially a bit off-putting to talk about the topic, and it risks coming across as disingenous. Just ask your questions without such supplication.