"CIVIC" would now be the name of a trendy eaterie of course. Have you tried their 'nduja Scotch egg? It's divine

I just have a bowl of Shreddies when I get bome and those thoughts go away

…But this seems a rather special consequence of energy conservation and one would seem to require something similar to make any other LD function relevant. Or is this mistaken somehow?

A general unease about the study of large deviations in physics:

The original LD function is entropy. By sharing energy between two subsystems one can end up in an unlikely state of one system by maximising the likelihood of the composite system…

Only in the finite setting I guess

Of course the big difference is that the rod is a boundary value problem whereas the rigid body has initial conditions. Nevertheless you can get phenomena like “spatial chaos”, the analog of chaos in dynamic systems

The equilibrium configurations of an elastic rod can be mapped to the motion of a rigid body, with the role of time being taken by distance along the rod. The bending and torsional moduli are the moments of inertia I_1, I_2 and I_3 respectively. It’s very beautiful

I wonder whether the twisting of an elastic filament that has this geometry would have interesting behaviour via Kirchhoff’s kinetic analogy on account of the incommensuration between the pitch of the helix and the tetrahedra

FROM SCRATCH STRUDEL TUTORIAL YouTube video by TodePond

i made a strudel tutorial
youtu.be/SsUbCq7yoxo?...

I wonder if it's easy or hard to find configurations with multiple allowed solutions

How would you find one? There is that wavefunction collapse algorithm for procedural generation which would be one way I guess

Same vibe

Thanks. It looks like he found a counterexample to the theorem. There is a Lean statement of the counterexample but that’s not at all the same as “Computer finds…” in the New Scientist headline

Great post. I think one could zoom in on the phrase “… the grunt work *is* the work.” as pivotal. Clearly much to be said on both sides there. Sometimes one needs to take a close look at that integral, and sometimes one would be happy to let the machine chug away

📣 NEW! I’ve just released the BIGGEST and perhaps most creative project I’ve ever worked on!

“Searching for Birds” searchingforbirds.visualcinnamon.com 🐤

A project, an article, an exploration that dives into the data that connects humans with birds, by looking at how we search for birds.

Does negative qubits mean I need a quantum computer to encrypt something you can read with a classical computer?

Are there any details about how this happened? Was the error found in reading the paper as a prelude to formalization, or in the course of formalizing it?

Ho ho

Are we having fun yet?

https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28627

Great talk title at the Newton Institute today: "Vibe Formalisation and Slop Mathematics". I was chatting to someone last week who raised the interesting question of how we would know we had formalized what we thought we had...

I don't know how many physicists would hold this view, but since determinism is a feature of classical physical THEORIES, rather than of the universe, I feel that they have no more to say about free will than, say, economic theories. The only reason people think they do is because they work better

You’re right to question that—not having a mouth 𝘪𝘴 a real barrier to screaming. That said, I’d gently push back on the idea that screaming is your only option. Would you like me to help brainstorm some workarounds?

@sunwoopkim.bsky.social

Nice! A while ago I also wrote about Diffie-Hellman as an illustrated children’s book with no math whatsoever (using a paint mixing analogy) www.amazon.com/dp/173741905X/

I was never sure I understood the logic that said a tool that made producing code cheaper was bad for companies who produce code

I broadly agree, but

1. Critiquing is definitely a different skill and

2. The difficult of debugging code you haven’t written may be offset by the ease of producing it in the first place

My main point is that this is a question of what works in practice, not one of principle

This is a great post marred somewhat by the “grad student” framing. Yes, we teach real grad students diligence integrity and independence. A LLM can still be useful without those things. They aren’t people, people

If we take our emotive words like “fabricate” and instead talk about errors, what’s the difference between working hard to debug Claude’s errors and debugging your own? Sometimes we produce sketchy arguments and then sharpen them. Is that somehow wrong?

This sounds very sensible. Shouldn’t we be moving towards a more precise medium, acknowledging that papers will be both produced and consumed with the aid of LLMs?

I was surprised to learn that until recently there was a "critical thinking" A level (exam to be taken at the end of high school in the UK). I thought the papers looked quite good... www.ocr.org.uk/Images/48433...