Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We’ve got a science opportunity overload: Launching the Wolfram Institute

writings.stephenwolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 376 posts

Re: We’ve got a science opportunity overload: Launching the Wolfram Institute

#81

Post by jamespwilliams »

doomrobo wrote: post #68
postingposts wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, I do really weird math for unspecified reasons. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/28da/6507acf40f892b95ee61a7... Cellular Automata are, in essence, a type of mathematical function called a “Chaos Map”, aside from the cool name it’s also a WYSIWYG name, a chaos map is a mapping of how a fractal expands or changes across space time. A great example very germane to this site is the Hacker Glider from Conway’s game o…

From your first link: > The digital images can be converted to binary data and encrypted with Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). However, the high correlation between adjacent pixels may still be kept after encrypting a digital image without considering the property of digital images. What do you mean by this? It sounds like it’s suggesting that, e.g., the AES-CBC ciphertext of an image has detectable internal corre…

I guess they’re referring to AES-ECB, which is notoriously weak at encrypting images (it’s weak in general of course, just most obviously with respect to images): https://words.filippo.io/the-ecb-penguin/.

But I don’t think the same is true of the other AES cipher modes.

Re: We’ve got a science opportunity overload: Launching the Wolfram Institute

#82

Post by estevaoam »

I think Law of Jante summarizes the 'zeitgeist' of HN comments towards this man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

The goal should be always to understand and discuss ideas, despite egos. As hard that can be practically, anything else is unproductive and not worth persuing.

His thoughts and theories are something to not ignore, but to follow with the same skepticism as any revolutionary claim should be. That should be irrespective of the author.

But we need to give value to new ideas and have a small dose of optimism, that way we can be open to true innovation and paradigm shifts.

But there is nothing bad that Wolfram's mind is powerful. I doubt anyone here would dare to try to create something as complicated as it's Wolfram service.

Re: We’ve got a science opportunity overload: Launching the Wolfram Institute

#83

Post by plaguepilled »

postingposts wrote: post #56
aj7 wrote: post #28

I’ve had more downvotes sharing my opinions about cellular automata on HN than on any other topic, so I won’t make any here. Rather, I’d like to point out that I personally have not seen a single theory, not a single piece of a theory, known to be productive in explaining experimental data, recast with underlying cellular automata theory. If I am simply showing my ignorance, please enlighten me. Meanwhile, the clock…

Hey, I do really weird math for unspecified reasons. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/28da/6507acf40f892b95ee61a7... Cellular Automata are, in essence, a type of mathematical function called a “Chaos Map”, aside from the cool name it’s also a WYSIWYG name, a chaos map is a mapping of how a fractal expands or changes across space time. A great example very germane to this site is the Hacker Glider from Conway’s game o…

So then is it less of a proof mechanism and more of a simulation one?

Re: We’ve got a science opportunity overload: Launching the Wolfram Institute

#84

Post by nlitened »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #72
ALittleLight wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus it's not like Wolfram is taking resources away from other scientists as he is funded from his company. If Wolfram wasn't doing this he'd be CEO'ing his company, there's no cost to the public for Wolfram exploring this and potentially huge gains - though unlikely.

Money is not the only resource. Scientist time is another resource, and probably a lot more important when it comes to Physics. Any private venture such as this necessarily (a) takes up scientist time, (b) provides training to scientists that can be applied to other problems later on, (c) as a second order effect, molds the public's perception of science in a certain way. (a), (b) or (c) could individually be positiv…

There’s no such thing as a limited supply of scientists, whose precious time is to be carefully allocated. For all I know, Wolfram might be creating new scientists from people who otherwise might not choose to pursue corrupt academia route.

Re: We’ve got a science opportunity overload: Launching the Wolfram Institute

#85

Post by carlob »

anyfactor wrote: post #31
ridaj wrote: post #9

The more I hear about Stephen Wolfram's schemes to name things after Stephen Wolfram, the more admirative I grow of Nicolas Bourbaki and wished he were publishing amazing math software these days.

Why didn't a group like this emerged in software? My opinion is that you obviously don't pay for free and/or open software with money but you do pay with the fatigue of bearing the creators ideological and personal whims. Software requires maintenance and support. It is not a do it once and do it perfectly. Also let's not forget about us the users who constantly attempt to dictate the path the software is heading. If…

Possibly Satoshi Nakamoto?

Re: We’ve got a science opportunity overload: Launching the Wolfram Institute

#86

Post by comboy »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #64

I have the man's magnum opus on my shelf. Cheeky graduation present from a friend. Never managed to enjoy reading it unfortunately but it makes for a great paper weight. I also occasionally use it as a laptop stand. It's big and heavy and oddly convenient for that. This press release is a bit long, incoherent, and manages an impressive number of buzzwords that I don't normally associate with cellular automata. Can so…

I recommend his Lex Friedman interviews on youtube. I've been reading and listening to Wolfram for some time and Lex manages to somehow get the most out of him.

The ego is annoying and personally I don't think that New Kind of Science is very high in information density (may be my ignorance), but Wolfram definitely has many many great insights to offer if you are able to just ignore the remarks about him being the first in the world that did that 30 years ago in computer science, physics and biology.

He did and keeps doing amazing things that are indeed much ahead of the competition.

This is not a new pattern, I've posted this link before HN but I want to repeat it so many times [1] - we are standing on shoulders of jerks (I do not think Wolfram is a jerk btw, but people clearly have some problem with his way of being)

1. https://youtu.be/bsgWSPWX-6A?t=650

Re: We’ve got a science opportunity overload: Launching the Wolfram Institute

#87

Post by teruakohatu »

esperent wrote: post #71
teruakohatu wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Practically it can lead to better encryption like I linked above, superior understanding and prediction of weather This is the problem. Maybe it will, but as of yet nobody has figured out a practical application beyond "helping us appreciate nature" (replace nature with any chaotic system). We are pretty good with weather prediction and getting better all the time. The fundamental problem is the chaotic nature. CA…

> This is the problem. Maybe it will, but as of yet nobody has figured out a practical application beyond "helping us appreciate nature" (replace nature with any chaotic system). Why is this a problem? Doing maths purely for its own sake is as valid and useful as painting a picture, or cooking a delicious meal instead of just eating dry bread. If that's not good enough for you, there are plenty of examples of maths t…

> Why is this a problem? Doing maths purely for its own sake is as valid and useful as painting a picture, or cooking a delicious meal instead of just eating dry bread.

Nothing is wrong with this at all. I never wrote nor even implied there was anything wrong with this.

If you had read to the end of my comment you would have seen I wrote:

> Maybe all CA needs to do is help us appreciate nature and simple machines.

So looks like we are in agreement in appreciating the beauty of maths.

Re: We’ve got a science opportunity overload: Launching the Wolfram Institute

#88

Post by throwaway81523 »

DantesKite wrote: post #73

Man these are some low-quality comments. You’d think Wolfram was torturing gerbils or something. I don’t mind criticisms of my favorite thinkers. I enjoy watching someone being taken to task in the battle of ideas so to speak, but apparently something about Wolfram just rubs people the wrong way, because they seem to lose the ability to make cogent arguments after reading him. As a simple example of what a healthy di…

> show where it’s wrong

Do you know the expression "not even wrong"?

Re: We’ve got a science opportunity overload: Launching the Wolfram Institute

#89

Post by isitmadeofglass »

noizejoy wrote: post #78

Could be a fun ask HN: What would happen if Mr. Wolfram and Mr. Musk would have to share the same room for a while?

Good question. Wolfram shared some time with Steve Jobs once and Mathematica happened.

/jk of cause, but it actually was Jobs who came up with the idea for the name.

Re: We’ve got a science opportunity overload: Launching the Wolfram Institute

#90

Post by ace2358 »

pwdisswordfish9 wrote: post #54
froh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've sent me down an interesting reading path, about a group of mathematicians working under the pseudonym "Nicolas Bourbaki" and lo and behold they do even have a web site these days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki https://www.bourbaki.fr/ Now how does that relate to Stephen Wolfram?

The joke is that the discoveries attributed to “Stephen Wolfram” are actually the work of multiple people, none of whom are actually named that.

I mean, I studied maths and physics at uni. My recollection is that science is littered with things named after specific people when in actual fact multiple people put in hours and hours of work to making these discoveries. But only one name gets slapped on it.

‘Maxwell’s’ equations are a great example. Calculus is also a prime example (d/dx f(x) vs f’(x)). I’m pretty sure Gauss was a fantastic mathematician, but too much is named after him and a lot of recognition taken away from others who greatly contributed.

It’s not a new phenomena. I don’t think it’s great for things to be named after specific people at any point history, but it’s happened before and it’ll continue to happen.

Post reply on HN