IntenseDebate - jcmckeown

6 years ago @ http://jessecmckeown.t... - jessecmckeown.tumblr.c... · 0 replies · +1 points

... they say not to feed the trolls, you know?a ... I'm pretty sure I've No Idea what some people see, but I do expect that pareidolia is conditioned by one's priming.

7 years ago @ http://jessecmckeown.t... - jessecmckeown.tumblr.c... · 0 replies · +1 points

Your longer paragraph seems to make every point I was already taking implicitly... so... Thank you! That's very encouraging!

Whether something sounds arrogant, it seems to me, depends on both the content and the audience. This spot here is a blogsome blog, indeed my blog, and for some reason I still get excited upon cracking through something that feels opaque. The title is an expression of one moment of such excitement.

7 years ago @ http://jessecmckeown.t... - jessecmckeown.tumblr.c... · 0 replies · +1 points

Hello, Gentlemen! It takes fewer keystrokes to put something in the n-Lab, because I don't put complaining in there. It also takes more gall because I want the nLab to be correct, whether its obscurantist or conceptual or both at the same time. It takes more time because writing too many keystrokes is easier than writing the right keystrokes.

Also, I'm not sure I need three people encouraging me to do the same reckless thing. Publishing this I did seems reckless enough.

What the note above was really driving at re. the n-Lab thing is that I believe the presheaf description is closer to the nLab philosophy, and furthermore seems to me (if indeed I've not gone off the rails) to have been the original intent of the definition-by-fiddly-bits, except I currently lack a proper library and can't find a reference for my suspicion. As I've told Mike and said over at the HoTT blog, I Want A Reference. "Surely the nLab would know the nLab-philosophy-description"... Steve Awodey seems to know the same thing, but I can't tell where he knows it from. I know the nLab is deliberately work-in-progress. This place here is where I put my own work-in-progress. Some of it is factually-wrong, but I mind that less, here.

7 years ago @ http://jessecmckeown.t... - jessecmckeown.tumblr.c... · 1 reply · +1 points

I don't mean it as ill-tempered complaining. More like ribbing. Also, it will take me a while to finish enough of the argument. And then the Elves will have more work to do, because I haven't time to absorb coding conventions... and then reduce the xymatrixes to arrays... Well. ALSO. I want to know Who Got There First, because this feels like it should be old stuff, too. Surely Ronnie Brown or maybe even Kan... Until one or the other, this is still Workbook material, not Note-book.

8 years ago @ http://jessecmckeown.t... - jessecmckeown.tumblr.c... · 0 replies · +1 points

But, on the other hand, the alphabets are short, and $E_3$ is ... also small, in its way... it has a compact family of generating operations... and one can only read text that's at least five pixels high. At some point, we don't say $2^{bigThing}$ anymore, but $?bexp(bigThing ?blog 2)$. At some point we intellectually box things and talk about $A^B$ where $A$ is one mess and $B$ is another. Good typesetting becomes a distraction when there is no way to read what is typeset.

8 years ago @ http://jessecmckeown.t... - jessecmckeown.tumblr.c... · 0 replies · +1 points

"Should humans even be enumerating implicit metadata... ?a" Well, only sometimes. In a meta-local way, perhaps?a There is a reason we're bad at enumerating it, which is that we've become very good at infering it, (with practise, at least). It's how you decide whether you're looking at a fraction or a judgment or a Legendre symbol; whether you're looking at a binomial coefficient or a Schutte Klammer or a vector in $R^2$.

8 years ago @ http://jessecmckeown.t... - jessecmckeown.tumblr.c... · 1 reply · +1 points

Ah, but WordPerfect is not a Turing Complete programming language! (at least... I don't think it is) JavaScript however does pretend to be one, and there is (or seems to be) a computable mapping from typset letters to javascripts drawing them in html, hence the typography problem is only as hard as programming.

When I say that html wants a representation of E3, I really mean that such a thing should be added to html. More: it is what every gui browser engine does with html already (breaking it into boxes and packing the boxes together), and if any underlying fact of browsers deserves to be made visible to html, that would be my first nomination. I don't suggest eliminating any features, (E3 doesn't talk about bold or italics or font faces or paragraphs) just that there is this conceptual gap in the baked-in semantics of css boxes.

And beyond that, I'm being ever-so-slightly sardonic as well.

8 years ago @ http://jessecmckeown.t... - jessecmckeown.tumblr.c... · 0 replies · +1 points

... ok, mathjax and/or tumblr and/or intensedebate changed something that breaks my comment-edit script. grr... Custom Elements proposed spec is at http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/ ; and... golly, that fraction turned out ugly.

Have I not lamented the staleing of the internet?a

8 years ago @ http://jessecmckeown.t... - jessecmckeown.tumblr.c... · 5 replies · +1 points

OK, very good questions.
Yes, an exponent wants to be in a chained-rightwards box, and inside that box it wants to be raised up (over an empty box, maybe, or "vertical-align:top" or such). That's not difficult. $?bleft(?bfrac{1}{2}?bright)$ is
----
Brackets and radicals are more interesting; and really I think they're wanting to be part of what css today calls "borders" (and within that, the degree of a radical wants to be placed like an exponent to the left... And this is What <a href="http://t.umblr.com/redirect?az=https%3A%2F%2 Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fcustom-elements%2F&t=Y2NlODgyMjJiODM2YWJkZGU3MDA5MmFmNjY4ODRiNGRkYTg0YTY3ZixIbUpDQkd6Tg%3D%3D" target="_blank">Custom Elements Is About (sort of--- only they want MORE).
----
Also, as PK mentions, typographically speaking All The Problems Are Solved --- the Hard problem, what mathml was really really for, is having a common presentation that Browsers know how to typeset AND serializers know how to recite for blind people AND that you can put into Maple or R or whathaveyou and get reasonable information about... and what makes this difficult is that mathematicians --- humans generally, even, are bad at enumerating implicit metadata.

9 years ago @ http://jessecmckeown.t... - jessecmckeown.tumblr.c... · 0 replies · +1 points

Howdy! Yes and no. Whitehead's Theorem says that the Homology Functor reflects isomorphism on a Carefully Chosen Subcategory. What the question was about is a strong version of how homology is not Full.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with jcmckeown

People I'm following

jcmckeown