Universal Quantification Puns

https://jax.network/ #Jax.Network #Blockchain #Stablecoin

It seems to me, coming from Haskell, that requiring every type signature to include the explicit universal quantification just leads to a lot of line noise. Particularly when there's also a typeclass constraint.

Are there plans to make a compiler option that would remove the need to explicitly give the universal qualification? Why was it even chosen in the first place?

I was looking at this post and this solution has caught my eye. The reason it has caught my eye is because although it appears to be a very simple method, it seems to me to be wrong. Didn't /u/EpsilonGreaterThan0 prove "If y = 0 and for any y, xy + x - 4 = 4y = x'y + x' - 4, then x = x' " rather than "For any y, xy + x - 4 = 4y = x'y + x' - 4, then x = x' " thereby not proving the uniqueness of x?

Let's talk wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE)!

WBE uses wastewater (aka, sewage) sampling to track public health at a population level with geographic specificity. While it has been around for decades, wastewater surveillance really entered primetime as a tool for tracking the spread of COVID-19. By detecting cases before symptoms emerge, wastewater surveillance can act as an early warning system for outbreaks and even variant detection, helping local organizations and governments keep ahead of the curve.

In the U.S., the CDC and HHS created the National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS) to monitor community spread. Similar efforts have cropped up around the world including the Sewage Analysis CORe group Europe (SCORE) and the Global Water Pathogen Project (GWPP). Many of the resulting studies can be visualized using the COVID-19 WBE Publication Map.

At this point, you may be wondering: How on earth can scientists detect trace amounts of a virus in municipal wastewater? The average American uses approx. 82 gallons of water at home every day! Despite this volume, tools like Droplet Digital PCR allows scientists to detect one infected individual in 10,000, as many as six days before they would test positive via a nasal swab.

There are so many more techniques, programs, and applications (incl. tracking other infectious diseases, drug use, etc.) possible with WBE. We can speak to topics such as:

• The history of wastewater testing and how wastewater surveillance works
• How wastewater surveillance has helped track COVID-19 outbreaks
• The technology that makes it possible, including ddPCR
• The overall research landscape surrounding WBE and its future applications
• Other general questions about WBE challenges, science policy, infrastructure, overall execution, and beyond

Feel free to start sharing your questions below.

Hello! For the purposes of my thesis, I need to employ a concept similar to a language quotient, but slightly different.

If L1 and L2 are languages over Sigma, the left quotient is defined this way:

L2 \ L1 = { w in Sigma* | exists x in L2: xw in L1 }

The thing I need is very similar, but replaces the existential quantification with universal:

{ w in Sigma* | forall x in L2: xw in L1 }

Does this exist? If so, can anyone point me in the right direction? I am particularly interested in whether regular languages are closed under this operation and whether the result is computable for regular languages.

"Remember, what I offer is the truth, nothing more." - Morpheus

We are trapped by our programming. Years and years of neurons firing together to repeated stimuli and then subsequently wiring together to reinforce the learned behavior.

Those neurons are so fast and so wired together that this all happens before you even have a conscious thought. We are one with our impulses and drives, they guide and shaped how we formed higher thought version of ourselves.

Think Pavlov's dog to an exponential power from every source of stimuli beating you over the head every day of your life.

True that with things like cognitive behavioral therapy, self help books, and religion we can create more programming on top of more programming to try to correct the behavior or thoughts.

But why write more code for the computer that is your brain when that programming is just going to sit on top of a mountain of faulty programming that you are drowning in.

What if you want to just do a hard reset of the computer and start from scratch. That's what awakening is. Stepping into the shoes of your 'soul' and bit by bit challenging and rewriting all those years of code.

Here is a hack that worked for me. It took me years to master it but now I'll share the two sentences that distill it the best for admittedly a western Judeo-Christian audience:

There is no such thing as love. God is the devil.

Instantly those two thoughts should rock you to your core. Most will completely reject them as nihilistic or even satanist or sacrilegious.

Those reactive thoughts are the defensive programming guarding your source code, how you define the purpose of life which is beyond words but exists in your head.

But consider this. Love is a proxy for other things we really want. More time with people we cherish, more money for activities we enjoy, more safety and security for those we are responsible for. In reality love is a catchall generic term for describing that which we pursue, a proxy to how we divide and quantify our attention, even if it is a subjective quantification of just feelings. And when we consider the concept that love is just an illusion, then we can open up ourselves to the possibility that everything is love, it just depends on your perspective of the subjective factors of a situation.

And if God is all powerful and makes no mistakes in the universe than that means God is solely responsible for evil. And solely responsible for the devil. So therefore the devil is just an

I think our communication is bad. Embarrassingly bad. I acknowledge that I'm currently in a DOD staff job, but the zeitgeist on reddit seems to back me up.

What has led me to that conclusion?

1. 100% of my USSF news comes from facebook, reddit, and word-of-mouth from my subordinates
2. "Semper Soon" is my first thought anytime I hear about SF changes

Every week this continues perpetuates a culture of bad communication that will persist for decades.

What can we do about it? Stop! Or rather, start! Start communicating.

So far I've directly received 5-10 SF emails. Messages like "remember Veteran's Day" from the CSO. Those are good and can be inspirational. However, I receive more emails from my alma mater asking for money than I do from SF leadership.

It would also be great to regularly use the same list to distribute relevant force-wide information that we care about.

Following are 2 example messages, but I can envision dozens of such messages.

• explain supra coders
• what real change will we see from all these university partnerships?
• "first digital force?" What does that mean (beyond declaring it to be so)?
• acknowledge the budget realities that chain us to ancient computers burdened with network policies
• what is SMC 2.0/SSC? How is it better?
• changes to SMF
• changes to promotion testing/boarding/single cut-off date
  • then 1-2 years later tell us how it is or isn't working
• uniform updates--how long does it take to decide? manufacture? distribute? phase-in?
  • update us again when your plans are delayed
• show us sample PT uniforms (it's not cosmic, we won't be very mad if they change)
• explain why a promotion board got delayed and acknowledge/allay career fears
• policy overcame promises? Acknowledge it, explain it, and apologize. (E.g. you can decline up to the day of transfer)
• Russia blew up a thing in space? Tell us why it matters. Don't make us find it on CNN when we're in the Space Force.
• highlight examples (by name!) that exemplify choosing the right person over AFSC stovepiping

Thoughts?

Additional communication creates a risk of being proven wrong, but right now we're building a culture of "semper soon."

fitness email example:

>As in many areas, the SF is considering our range of options for ensuring physical fitness. Our fitness goal remains the same as always: Effectively use our resources, including guardian time, to build a culture that ensures a strong and healthy force capable of per

I had the realization this morning that conditional, subjunctive, and other sorts of irrealis modal constructions provide a great way to demonstrate the connection between quantifier semantics and modal semantics, because they often have explicit statements of the modal base. E.g., in a basic "if/then" sentence, the "if" clause specifies the modal base, which is the restrictor of an underlying quantifier, and the "then" clause specifies the scope of that quantifier. Furthermore, we can test the entailment and strength properties to get a good idea of what that underlying quantifier is; consider:

"If it's raining, then the ground is wet." => "If rain is coming down in torrents, then the ground is wet."
"If it's raining, then the ground is wet." /> "If it's precipitating, then the ground is wet."
Truth is preserved for subsets of the restrictor, so it's left downward entailing.

"If it's raining, then the ground is wet." => "If it's raining, then there is liquid in contact with the ground."
"If it's raining, then the ground is wet." /> "If it's precipitating, then the ground is soggy."
Truth is preserved for supersets of the scope, so it's also right upward entailing.

"If it's raining, the ground is wet." /> "If the ground is wet, then it's raining."
Truth is not preserved under symmetry, so it's strong.

(Hint: it's a basic universal quantifier.)

Since we can identify upward vs. downward entailing environments associated with quantification in these sentences, they should be able to license/prohibit negative polarity items. And indeed, that seems to be true:

+"If it's raining at all, then the ground is wet."
*"If it's raining, then the ground is wet at all."

I do not know of any specific literature on this, and for all I know other languages might not respect modal restrictor scopes as licensing environments for polarity items, but it seems like a potentially fun thing to play with in a conlang regardless.

Hi there homeworkhelp, bit of a stickle here.

I'm currently in the process of quantifying the bands on my Western Blot membranes, in which the secondary antibodies were detected via fluorescence. The antibody band (polyclonal, Cav2.2) I'm trying to quantify has produced two bands at approximately 130 and 200 kDa - which is what it should do, as the manufacturer's example shows the same bands produced. I believe this may be because of the polyclonal antibody targeting different isoforms of the target subunit - but the manufacturer's website doesn't clarify why two bands are produced so I can only speculate (seems like a significant molecular weight difference?)

However, how do I quantify this? Combine the two bands' fluorescence values, or take an average of the two?

Or should I avoid quantifying at all; my project is focused on detecting the presence/abundance of Sodium channels, and this is a Calcium channel antibody I'm having a problem with. Perhaps I should not try to quantify this at all as it's not the main objective?

I decided to write this post as O Level graduates are now finding which JC to apply to and thinking of what subject combi to take. Students who have a keen interest in math and are good in math would be naturally interested in H2 Further Math (FMath), as ultimately it is advantageous to capitalise on your strengths by having 40 out of 90 rank points to be contributed by math subjects. Hence, it is important for students to know not just the content they are learning in H2 FMath (which can be found on the SEAB website), but also what is the relation of this content in university.

Also, the same group of students may also be thinking of H3 Math. So, what is the difference between H2 FMath and H3 Math? Apart from the obvious difference of H2 FMath is counted in rank points but not H3 Math, what is the difference in the content taught? Different content may interest different students leading to some students finding H2 FMath or H3 Math more suitable for their interest and their future academic pursuits in university. Knowing this difference is important in the immediate concern of choosing JC subject combi. Because usually if one takes H2 FMath, one needs to give up studying 1 science subject (which is usually chemistry that is a prerequisite for say medicine degree). So for those interested in math who wants to not give up studying another science subject (for flexibility in choosing more degree courses in uni application), they may want to instead do H3 Math over H2 Fmath.

Here, I provide my perspective as a university math major after looking at the SEAB syllabus of H2 FMath and H3 Math (Link Below). I would suggest students interested in taking H2 Fmath to read both the syllabus of H2 FMath and H3 Math to understand what kind of content is taught in each subject.

H2 FMath Syllabus:

https://www.seab.gov.sg/docs/default-source/national-examinations/syllabus/alevel/2023syllabus/9649_y23_sy.pdf

H3 Math Syllabus:

https://www.seab.gov.sg/docs/default-source/national-examinations/syllabus/alevel/2023syllabus/9820_y23_sy.pdf

H2 Fmath extends on some of the topics that you will learn in H2 Math (H2 FMath: 1.2 Complex numbers, 1.6 Differential equations, 3.1 Discrete random variables, 3.2 Continuous random variables, 3.3 Hypothesis testing and Confidence intervals). The rest of the topics are new topics that are not in H2 Math. The content covered in H2 Fmath is usually topics covered in uni year 1 math modules for math/compsci/engineering degrees. Hence

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

Sort of. Unless it already had it, which it kind of did... but now it's more convenient and grammaticalized!

Anyway, I was recently discussing the similar semantic basis for modality and evidentiality, which suggests that, while these two categories are functionally and syntactically distinct and thus quite justified in being considered separately in natural languages, they could be blurred together in a conlang. And WSL's syntactic constructions for explicit quantification over probability distributions  / possible worlds actually already fill that purpose--both modal and evidential structures can be translated into WSL with that common mechanism. However, the notions that were encoded as single words of the relevant syntactic category (rather than requiring expression as multi-word descriptive phrases) were all strongly mood-ish--so, in order to demonstrate the fuzzy boundary between modality and evidentiality more strongly, I have now expanded WSL's set of "modals" from 4 to 7.

The original modals:

es - indicates that the clause describes exactly one real world, or else all worlds consistent with the known discourse context. This is the default, and is usually phonologically unrealized. It’s presence typically triggers an emphatic reading.

miy - indicates existential quantification (at least one, more allowed) over a superset of "es", including extra worlds made possible by acknowledging imperfect information (roughly meaning  " it could be true, especially if I’m wrong about some things").

bi - irrealis, indicating existential quantification over the set of all possible worlds. Universal quantification over all possible worlds is used for, e.g., logical tautologies.

pek - indicates universal quantification over the set of worlds consistent with a contextually-provided set of ideals. This is roughly equivalent to "should", in the deontic sense.

The new modals:

ac - indicates universal quantification over possible worlds consistent with the subset of the speaker's knowledge gained by direct experience.

akc - indicates universal quantification over possible worlds consistent with the subset of the speaker's knowledge learned from other people. (This is not exactly equivalent to a hearsay evidential, because on its own it still assumes the accuracy of that knowledge.)

het - indicates universal quantification over possible worlds consistent with the subset of the speaker's knowledge derived from logical inference on other data sources.

Like

This is a chapter from a book I am currently working on that deals with the state of institutional trust in America. Given that this is a recurring theme of breaking points, and Krystal criticized wokeness today, I think it is timely and that this sub may be interested. "DDP" stands for Data-Driven Progressive, a left-leaning humanist ideology hoping to be a counterweight to "wokeness" without being reactionary.

Edit: this is a work in progress so please excuse grammar and spelling errors, it's a total rough draft

Chapter 3 - Secular Inquisition

The Church of “Social Justice”

In order to restore trust in institutions and win the war on normal people, progressive and data-driven actions must be taken to increase institutional efficiency, transparency, and address the myriad of issues plaguing the working class and the population in general. Without data driving progressive change, we will never be able to accurately assess if these initiatives are actually working and having their intended impact. But first, in order to use data correctly, we must be able to agree on objective reality. The American left has traditionally been the home of science, logic, discourse, and the marketplace of ideas - all traditions which are necessary to address the issues of our time. Alarmingly, however, factions claiming to reside within the left have been increasingly antagonistic towards these very traditions so sacred to democracy, reform, and true social justice. These factions have abandoned the ideas of liberal universalism and the individual, opting to dive headfirst into the less-than-helpful, quasi-religious world of “Woke Postmodernism” and Critical Theory.

Postmodernism becoming mainstream in political discourse is a relatively new phenomenon. Postmodernism is a Western philosophy characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism, a general suspicion of reason, and an acute sensitivity to the role of identity in asserting and maintaining political and economic power. In other words, be skeptical of everything because what you believe may just be the false result of your ideology or identity which you’re blinded by.

In many ways, this is an important and helpful check on our shared human flaws, our proclivity toward ideological and tribal thinking, and the failings of modern society to create equally shared prosperity. It is relevant to this discussion as Postmodernism is largely a cynical reaction to the assumed certaint

After months of hard work, PollenDeFi will soon be at the forefront of the Cryptocurrency scene. We decided its about time that you met the brains working day and night to ensure that Pollen is everything it promises to be.

Philip Verrien
Co-Founder and Project Lead
Philip is Co-Founder and Project Lead at Pollen DeFi and brings the technical leadership and lifetime of experience needed to run the innovative DAO-based platform. Verrien has a particular interest in decentralisation and governance structures and has been involved with the blockchain space since early 2013; His life pre-blockchain was focused on Venture Building, the Swiss banking industry, Banking Technology, and Open Science.

Philip Verrien - Project Lead - Pollen | LinkedIn

Dr. Jaime Fernando Delgado
Blockchain Architect
Jaime has a PhD in electronics engineering with more than 15 years of experience in programming, machine learning, data analysis, Blockchain technologies, protocol design and smart contracts architecture. His expertise includes academia as postdoctoral research at the University of Geneva and in industry, previous experience involves development of machine learning and signal processing methods at BRAINCOM, an international project funded by the European Commission, development of an agri-commodities platform using blockchain technology to verify and authenticate trades as well as tokenisation of grains at CEREALIA SA, and more recently the design and implementation of blockchain architecture and web platform for equity tokenisation at Liti Capital SA where he is Chief Technical Officer.

Jaime Fernando Delgado Saa - Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer - Liti Capital SA | LinkedIn

Dr. Theodosis Mourouzis
Cryptography & Game Theory
Dr Theodosis (Theo) Mourouzis is a cryptologist and information security professional with strong interests in both academia and industry. He holds a BA/MA in Mathematics and an MSc in Pure Mathematics from the University of Cambridge, an MRes in Security Science and a PhD in Information Security from University College London. He was the first recipient in the UK Cyber Cipher Security Challenge in 2013.

Theo is Managing Partner of Electi Consulting, a consultancy specialising in Blockchain, Cryptography and Artificial Intelligence. He is also Industry Associate at

Do your worst!

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

I'm going to be brief, and to be sure, normally I wouldn't do this, but I think it would be unfair, ultimately, to Ayn Rand, not to admit that this is true, and prove it moreover.

So one of the features of Rand's philosophy is a rejection of the analytic-synthetic distinction. The arguments in favor of this distinction, or which favor more the notion of universally synthetic truth (e.g. per Quine), might seem the most closely considered and justified arguments. By contrast, according to Rand's system, all truths are analytic. It is a hallmark of modern philosophy that no existence truths are analytic (this is relevant to the denial of the ontological argument for the existence of God). However, in Rand's system, they would all be analytic. Indeed, "Existence exists," her great axiom, would be analytic (and it does seem, on the face of it, to be a verifiably analytic existence truth!).

This is, therefore, a genuinely precise philosophical stance in Rand's system. Moreover, it has intriguing consequences: given her heavy reliance on principles for resolving contradictions, Rand ends up explicating the analytic nature of existence truths in terms of resolving contradictions. So in effect, foundationalism and coherentism collapse into each other. There is a mainstream philosopher of note (Susan Haack IIRC) who has collapsed these doctrines, though in a less "devastating way." At any rate, again, Rand's system involves a specific philosophical consideration, worthy of any more well-acknowledged writer.

Moreover, for what it's worth, Rand isn't actually alone in deep academia, in holding existence truths to admit of proof modulo the law of analytic identity and noncontradiction. Mainstream set theorists either hold that large cardinal axioms, which are existential quantifications, can be justified as "unfolding the iterative conception of sets," in other words by analysis of that conception; or by showing that they harmonize with each other modulo the law of noncontradiction in some system or other, so that any consistent system's existence is given. So there seems to be a legitimate community of theorists who operate as if analytic existence truths are possible, and Rand's deep thesis, even if she didn't fully self-consciously appreciate it in these terms, resonates with those theorists (again, in her defense).

Background: I’m in my sixth year total of grad school, having completed a two-year funded MA before beginning my current program, which is five years guaranteed funding in a History of Medicine PhD program (my geographic focus is Latin America). I’m currently on the fourth year of my guaranteed funding, though I’ve been assured that there will always be some sort of a TAship/PAship/RAship available for me after the fifth year. I don’t expect to be able to finish before 2025 (having started in 2016, my MA credits didn’t carry over to my PhD, except for my MA thesis).

I did my comprehensive examinations throughout the COVID year (started Aug 2020 and wrote the exams in May 2021) and passed my dissertation proposal in August of 2021. I am now in-field on a department fellowship, and holy shit I’m so lonely. My Spanish was C1-level by EU standards last time I took classes (2019), but has deteriorated slightly during COVID (though it is still adequate enough to make friends and do archival work and translating academic articles). I’ve had to leave my partner and our dog behind because her funding is in-person TAing. To be honest, I don’t know why I expected this fieldwork trip to be any different from the previous six-week archival trips I did in 2017 and 2019, when I was also miserable and lonely.

Moreover, I feel like academia has sapped my joy for history, and that the parts of academia I have enjoyed the most are possibly the least valued for professional advancement. I quite like teaching, but most R1 faculty see it as a chore rather than a fun thing to do (not all, and I have TAed for Profs who genuinely enjoy it). I really enjoyed coursework because it gave me the opportunity to be exposed to new ideas, new themes, new periods, all while working with a new group of people every 4-6 months. I really enjoyed that kind of collaboration and exploration. Focusing so intently, by myself, on my specific topic is kind of joyless. I could be doing any project and be happy with the content, but the actual work experience of isolated archival work and writing would be the same (Republican/Imperial Rome, colonial South Asia, Ming-era China, Gilded Age/Progressive-era US, Italian unification, Ottoman expansion, any one of these periods/themes and myriad others would interest me as much as my current project). I got to do a bit of historiographical research for my advisor on something completely outside of both our wheelhouses and I loved it (histories of quantif

Because she wanted to see the task manager.

Heard they've been doing some shady business.

but then I remembered it was ground this morning.

Edit: Thank you guys for the awards, they're much nicer than the cardboard sleeve I've been using and reassures me that my jokes aren't stale

Edit 2: I have already been made aware that Men In Black 3 has told a version of this joke before. If the joke is not new to you, please enjoy any of the single origin puns in the comments

BamBOO!

They’re on standbi

A play on words.

Pilot on me!!