Leaderboard

Not really that much of an insight TBH, but I'll take it anyway. Baez-Dolan cobordism hypothesis is used to clasify topological quantum field theories. What does it have to do with computation? I'm familiar with Baez's motto "A QFT is a functor." However interesting such statements may be in physics, what do these manifolds represent in computer science? Topological information on a manifold could be coded in topological invariants, like, ie., the Betti numbers. Is that the connection? Thank you, but no, thank you. I spent three months studying those under a teacher who was a mathematical physicist. Very nice, very good teacher. A fountain of mathematical knowledge in the vein of Baez. I thank him for the A he gave me, which I didn't deserve. But I don't know what the hell we were doing studying monoids and alphabets as a substitute for group theory for physicists. Apparently, no one in the department wanted to teach the Lorentz group because it's not compact, and that's very very bad, for some reason. I had to learn that from Weinberg's QFT Volume I. I tell you this just to explain I'm a person very much shaped by the effort of trying to free myself from the shackles of being exposed to layers and layers of abstraction that don't lead anywhere useful. As to, I don't know what to do with that, or in what sense it clarifies what information is, or how it's stored, deleted, encrypted, etc. It certainly doesn't clarify Landauer's principle to me. You might as well have given me the procedure to pluck a chicken. What particular aspect does it clarify in information theory? That's what I call an insight.

Ok. I had hoped for something more helpful to answer the question I asked. I tried to sort out if I disagreed with @studiot or just misunderstood some point of view, I did not know this was an exam that required such a level of rigor. "List" was just an example that studiot posted, we could use any structure. Anyway, since you do not like generalisations I tried, here is a practical example instead, based on Studiot's bookcase. 1: Studiot says: “Can you sort the titles in my bookcase in alphabetical order and hand me the list of titles?” me: “Yes” 2: Studiot: “can you group the titles in my bookcase by color?” me “yes, under the assumption that I may use personal preferences to decide where to draw the lines beteen different colors” 3: Studiot: “can you sort the titles in my bookcase in the order I bought them?” Me: “No, I need additional information*” I was curious about the differences between 1,2 and 3 above and if and how it applied to the initial coin example. One of the aspects that got me curious about the coin example was that it seemed open for interpretation whether it is most similar to 1,2 or 3. I wanted to sort out if that was due to my lack of knowledge, misunderstandings or other. Thanks for the info but I already know how exams work. *) Assuming, for this example, that the date of purchase is not stored in Studiots bookcase.

Metals are not chemicals and insects are not animals.

Very big of you. As to this issue, A metal is actually a chemical term, very specifically defined. Many scientific terms are common across several disciplines. Each such discipline has its own particular interest in that term. Road engineers, geographers and lawyers for instance talk about a metalled road surface. What do you think that means ? You started here by saying that you were a layman and asking questions. Highly commendable. But you then changed to preaching to a bunch of specialists. Not so good. So please feel free to ask some more questions, and if you like, tell us what you think a metal is. That is proper discussion.

It's statements like these that are a real timesaver for me when pondering whether to follow a certain line of reasoning. Thank you so much.

I'm going to build an argument that's completely isomorphic to this --no matter how scholarly-- silly idea: If sacrificing a virgin is the only means of avoiding a natural catastrophe that would wipe out thousands of lives, sacrificing a virgin should be used --and will be used-- to obtain the desired results... No one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility. Another isomorphism: A chain is as strong as its weakest link. An argument is as weak as the validity of the "if" it rests on.

He fights to overcome a stutter, which isn’t about energy.

What course was that? This sounds a lot like "She was just asking for it, dressed like that"

One trouble is that the first one has unbalanced parentheses:

No he's not, he's a twat. Three or four weeks ago, if I'd been leader of Ukraine, I'd have done a deal not to join NATO. What would it have cost? NATO membership was not even on the cards, for decades. The Germans said that publicly, and everybody knew it. A deal that costs nothing, and he turned it down? He's a moron. Everyone knew this was coming, and he had a simple choice to make. On what parallel universe could this be described as the best choice? What would the world be like today, if he'd done the deal? Nobody would have been killed, nobody would have fled, streets and shops would be normal, planes would be flying in and out as normal, cash machines would be working, and fuel in this country would be it's usual price. He's a mega twat.

I find your tedious mantra of "can you support your assertions" a bit pathetic. You do it all the time, not just to my posts, but to anyone and everyone. My posts are like most other people's, a mixture of fact and opinion. If you can't work out which is which, I'm not here to be your nursemaid. I try to make it obvious, I think I DO make it perfectly obvious, but some people, I guess, are determined to struggle even with the obvious.

Metals aren't chemicals. They are metals. So as metals, they have nothing to do with chemicals. Now if they are part of a molecule, that is a different matter. Next, lead by itself isn't a chemical. But sulfuric acid is. As for sound traveling through water supposedly being a chemical reaction, don't blame me for the statement. That is just what some scientist on TV said once. This may support that statement some. schools.look4.net.nz › science › chemistryEnergy Transfer in Chemical Reactions — Schools at Look4 Next, I said that DU has more electrons than lead. I said nothing about the nucleus. Next, John Hutchinson is said to have created a forever battery. Believe it or don't. But you can look it up. He called them Crystal batteries or Hiroshima cells. Maybe they are something like this. greenrhino-energy.com › crystal-batteriesCRYSTAL BATTERIES™ - Green Rhino Next, you can call Hutchinson whatever you want. But he did at least videotape some interesting effects. If they are fake, nobody can figure out how he did it. That in itself is an accomplishment. Also, though he could never reproduce the effects with other people around, I did see something interesting once in his lab where he was being interviewed. In the background, for no apparent reason a sponge flew up toward the ceiling from where it was sitting. This is more in the realm of poltergeist activity. But that it should have happened in his lab is interesting. Ok. Sorry about the "smarty pants" thing. I was just trying to have a little fun. Not insult anybody. As for the rest, I see that posts aren't numbered here. But if you look, you will see a reply of mine to exchemist with a couple of links to websites that might interest you. 1. Well different lead compounds. 2. The point I was making was that the metal lead itself isn't a chemical. In combination with other atoms in a molecule it is a chemical. That is all. Also, in another thread I mentioned a name that got an interesting reaction. John Hutchinson. He claimed to have created a "forever battery." Which may not actually be "forever." He called them Crystal batteries or Hiroshima cells. Apparently they do exist. One person experimenting with them said that strangely enough, hooking them up in series caused the voltage to drop. I don't know if it is true or not, but another website speaks of them. Here it is. greenrhino-energy.com › crystal-batteriesCRYSTAL BATTERIES™ - Green Rhino

No study of the irrational is necessary. It is just irrational, the end. Next, if the answer to any natural phenomena is wrong, then it isn't rational. As an intellectual exercise, there may be some purpose to it. Or rational if you wish. But apart from that, there is no purpose to it. And when the conclusions you gain from it are wrong, that makes it even worse. Aristotle is famed for having been a great thinker. But I don't think he was ever right about anything. As for most (if not all) the people around here being Atheists of various flavors, I have never encountered any atheist that wasn't a follower of some cult. I have been to every Atheist forum out there. And have been banned from them all for daring to speak the truth. And worse yet, proving what I had to say. In that, I would say that it's a safe bet that everybody here, to some degree, follows the cult of being a liar. Willingly duped. Brainwashed. Victims of a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. And worse yet, will fight like hell to remain mentally enslaved.