Agosagror @ Agosagror @lemmy.dbzer0.com

I'm Agosagror. I do stuff.

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

53

Joined

6 mo. ago

I would note that the graphene os team has issues with F-Droid from memory, for security reasons. I use f-droid, but its best to be eyes open imo.

They said in the report that they have grown marketshare in Asia and Africa, as less people use apple in those regions the percentage dropped.

I thought that was more of a language barrier thing tbh, poor guy probably would have used father or dad if he knew the connatations.

Where can i download this documentary?

I didnt see much about religion from a cursory glance at BBCs interviews after the vote, mostly objections to it lacking what those consider enough safeguards.

I dont use one, from memory its simply because there arent snitches but i cant fully remeber

They thinned the os, ive just watched llt video, the appear to have debloated some of it

Isnt this a post about investing in northen transport projects

Math is fun

I will die on this hill

I kind like lemmy posts like this tbh But yeah a mailing list would be cool

Since your a beginner, youll find nginx proxy manager easiest, it has a nice ui, and at this stage you are probably less intrested in the 10/10 fastest lighweight setup and more intrested in getting stuff working.

Youll benefit so much once you rip the bandaid off, saves so much time instead of fathing around torrent sites.

In combination with this, you can change the ui, as other reply said.

To be clear, this post is satire. If that wasn't obvious already.

I mean i agree with most of what you said already, the only disagreement we had was over the definition of proof.

This video doesnt change that particulally

Well I never commented on what it was, although I agree with you on the latter point, string theory doesn't to the best of my knowledge appear to be testable, so its a bit of a waste of time.

Right you are putting words in my mouth.

I never said that you derive it from axioms first, although I'm sure there exist theories which were derived from previous work especially some classical theories. The point I'm making is that a set of equations has to be self consistent, and sovlable, both of which are provable properties of those equations. That says NOTHING about the physical validity of the equations. However if you can't prove those properties on some level, you have a pretty nonsense set of equations.

Like I said you aren't "proving" that the theory is what governs whatever phenomenon, rather that it is consistent with itself.

As for finding the range of validity, again I agree with on that point, although I'm 100% sure there exists cases where you can predict the theory breaks down - just from looking at the equations, or deriving the bounds. But like I said, the equations still have to be non contradictory and solvable. In fact if they aren't solvable you cannot begin to verify them.

I completely appreciate that you are right about unable to prove a theory like you said. I'm pointing out that most people use proof to refer to showing that the equations aren't contradictory, again that doesn't prove the theory, but we know a good theory doesn't contradict itself, and hopefully it doesn't contradict other stuff, although relativetivity contradicts quatuam, indicating something else is going on.

What? How do you mean.

I said it was logically consistent, which if it wasn't no one would be shouting from the hills about it, since it would be the same as saying that 5 = 4.

It might be fictious, I.e. the equations don't relate to reality, but it is good fiction, in that it doesn't produce nonsense.

No string theory has unified them, it hasn't been verified. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of string theory, but presumably it is logically consistent. Or "proven".

It hasn't been experimentally verified

I said they could be proved from assumptions. In the same fashion as mathematical proofs, they aren't actually 100% true, they merely say that given these assumptions, the following is true. In maths the assumptions are so acutely obvious, or essentially definitions that we rarely rewrite our proof as the tautologies that they actually are

I agree with you that the you can't prove a physical theory, but you can TRY to axiomize it. Which is what Hilbert's 6th problem was.

In this way you can show that the equations you have are logically consistent - not that they are 100% true.

The crux of this argument is defintional, not factual, you take proof in an experimental way, as such no theory can be proven. I take proof to mean proven logically consistent. As such any good theory should be 100% proven, otherwise 1 might as be 0.

Yes but you can prove that something is true given your set of assumptions about the universe.

A very loose example would be light being constant which could be an assumption, and then you can show that from that relativity is a natural conclusion. Or proof it formally, resulting in the Einstein's equations.