Comment author: ChristianKl 11 January 2016 01:19:54PM *  0 points [-]

I learned math with the Peano axioms and we considered the symbol 2 to refer to the 1+1, 3 to (1+1)+1 and so on. However even if you consider it to be more complicated it still stays an analytic statement and isn't a synthetic one.

If you define 2 differently what's the definition of 2?

Comment author: mcallisterjp 11 January 2016 06:52:10PM *  0 points [-]

In type theory and some fields of logic, 2 is usually defined as (λf.λx.f (f x)); essentially, the concept of doing something twice.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 09 July 2014 10:27:44AM *  9 points [-]

Since a graph of n vertices has n choose 2 pairs, the total number of DAGs of n vertices has an upper bound of 3^(n choose 2). This is much smaller than n^n.

It is much larger. = , and is much larger than n.

3^(10 choose 2) is about 10^21.

Since the nodes of these graphs are all distinguishable, there is no need to factor out by graph isomorphism, so 3^(n choose 2) is the exact number.

Comment author: mcallisterjp 09 July 2014 12:50:30PM 5 points [-]

That's the number of all directed graphs, some of which certainly have cycles.

Comment author: mcallisterjp 25 November 2013 11:18:37AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: mcallisterjp 22 November 2013 08:31:25PM 26 points [-]

Surveyed. Looking forward to the data and analysis, as per every year.

Comment author: nshepperd 04 September 2013 01:44:22AM 1 point [-]

It's one thing to create a weapon that can be used to kill O(100,000) people at once (though, it's not really "at once" if you do it by dropping N bombs consecutively). It's another thing to create a weapon that can only be used to kill O(100,000) people at once.

Or something. Of course, if inventing nukes is evidence humans aren't very moral, the fact that people chose to kill a hundred thousand people in Tokyo with conventional weapons is a different kind of evidence for humans being not very moral.

Comment author: mcallisterjp 04 September 2013 11:29:39AM 6 points [-]

That's not how Big O notation works: O(100,000) = O(1).

You presumably mean "in the order of 100,000", which is sometimes written "~100,000".

</pedantry>

Comment author: SilasBarta 01 May 2013 05:17:41PM *  15 points [-]

I was pleasantly surprised to see this elegant phrasing of a (Machian?) rationalist principle in popular culture:

"There's an axiom in my business [i.e. law]: 'A difference that makes no difference is no difference.'"

-- Joe Adama in the TV series Caprica

Comment author: mcallisterjp 02 May 2013 09:56:24AM 7 points [-]

This is at least as old as Leibnitz.