41–50 of 75 posts
Its almost like the math came first, then the problem later.
You might want to read about induction vs deduction, this is deduction. I don't totally agree with Karl Popper, but at least he can explain why we see this math in multiple places.
I thought Taleb won (complex system outcomes, in the sociopolitical realm, cannot be predicted). But then I'm a Taleb fanboy.
Sornette (my first and last exposure to him) came across as a relic from a different age. Pitifully out of touch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know for a fact [1] that the neuroscientific discoveries were not independent of physics: the people doing the developing were largely former physicists. They likely didn't cite anything because why would you cite phase transitions or criticality? You learn about them in class as a physicist. I strongly suspect the ecology results weren't independent either, but all the theoretical ecologists I know are relatively…
> because why would you cite phase transitions or criticality? You learn about them in class as a physicist I'm not sure if you're being entirely serious with that remark, but clearly citing the earlier work would have bolstered their credibility: interdisciplinary research is a plus and hardly something to hide. If it's something that's taught in physics class, you can cite a common textbook.
Imagine if every graphics paper had to cite every concept they use from arithmetic, trigonometry, and linear algebra textbooks...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair call on the website — we built it fast and it shows. The paper itself is a traditional literature review and citation analysis. I am one of two human authors. We use standard methodology. Didier Sornette endorsed it for arXiv. Thanks for pulling out the direct link. I'll change the site to make it more prominent. This is my first serious attempt at social media engagement. Thanks for pointing out flaws and where…
That’s a bold use of an em dash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because why would you cite phase transitions or criticality? You learn about them in class as a physicist I'm not sure if you're being entirely serious with that remark, but clearly citing the earlier work would have bolstered their credibility: interdisciplinary research is a plus and hardly something to hide. If it's something that's taught in physics class, you can cite a common textbook.
I would read it as there being a different threshold for what is citation-worthy versus presumed background knowledge. Imagine if every graphics paper had to cite every concept they use from arithmetic, trigonometry, and linear algebra textbooks...
It’s kind of lame to post the same clickbait three times in under 24 hours. I guess it’s nothing new, but feels inorganic.
Dude, I'm sorry to offend you. And sharp of you to notice. I failed to get substantive engagement the first two times (1 point and 4 points) so I tried again. This time I got some engagement. Re. the title, I started with a boring conservative title and got precisely zero engagement, so I changed the title to be a bit more clickbaitish. Just like most of the other titles in New. Did I do wrong? As I said, this is my…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're raising the right question, and the paper addresses it directly. The transfer wasn't as clean as "physicists applied their tools to other fields." Some specific cases: Wissel (1984) derived critical slowing down for ecology independently and was ignored for 20 years. The actual import to ecology came via economist Buz Brock, not a physicist. Nolasco & Dahlen (1968) derived period-doubling for cardiac tissue be…
AI comment?
I wish authors would use their own voice instead of an LLM, especially in a rhetorical piece. I like the history of science, and might have otherwise read the authors' paper, but the use of LLM-isms throughout this page makes me worry that the arxiv submission will show the same lack of care/effort. Here's the manuscript at any rate, somewhat hard to find on the webpage: Convergent Discovery of Critical Phenomena Mat…
OP's comments in this thread are also pure clanker speak, which is disappointing and shows a lack of awareness of what HN is for.[0] It would be nice if an established scholar in this area of mathematics (complex systems) could comment re: this proposed correspondence and whether it has been noticed before. To be sure, similarly duplicative developments, gratuitous differences in terminology, etc. are discovered all…
It’s kind of lame to post the same clickbait three times in under 24 hours. I guess it’s nothing new, but feels inorganic.
Dude, I'm sorry to offend you. And sharp of you to notice. I failed to get substantive engagement the first two times (1 point and 4 points) so I tried again. This time I got some engagement. Re. the title, I started with a boring conservative title and got precisely zero engagement, so I changed the title to be a bit more clickbaitish. Just like most of the other titles in New. Did I do wrong? As I said, this is my…
And hey, I know everyone's doing it, but it's still annoying.
On HN specifically, you're supposed to avoid clickbait, avoid excessive reposts, and avoid using the site only for self-promotion[0]. This helps to create a community that promotes curiosity, instead of chasing growth hacks and engagement like many other social media platforms.