[HN Gopher] The Making of a Prophet
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Making of a Prophet
        
       Author : Caiero
       Score  : 36 points
       Date   : 2022-08-27 05:12 UTC (17 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (lareviewofbooks.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (lareviewofbooks.org)
        
       | hamiltonians wrote:
       | trim tab, more like flim flam
       | 
       | Coming from a rich family helps, but today in tech and finance we
       | see tons of successfull people from more modest means. i think
       | times have changed and family wealth not as important.
        
         | saiya-jin wrote:
         | > i think times have changed and family wealth not as
         | important.
         | 
         | Tell that hundreds of millions of dalits in india (coupled with
         | hundreds of millions of other lower castes) who never get a
         | chance to have a proper education because of caste they were
         | born in, and utter disregard for them by indian state.
         | 
         | If you ever have/had colleagues from India, trust me they are
         | not coming from some lower middle class or below. No chance in
         | hell, maybe in 22nd century.
         | 
         | And that's 1, albeit huge country.
         | 
         | But sure if you limit it to cca 5% of the global population
         | that represents US then its closer to true. In Europe, at least
         | after WWII, we solved this for good (apart form pesky east
         | during cold war where regime allegiance could make or break any
         | talent or hard work, further east its unfortunately still
         | valid)
        
       | civilized wrote:
       | The author obviously _really_ dislikes his subject, Buckminster
       | Fuller, but even accounting for some personal bias, the guy does
       | sound like a bit of an idiot:
       | 
       | > he found the number pi distasteful. "I'd learned at school that
       | in order to make a sphere, which is what a bubble is, you employ
       | pi, and I'd also learned that pi is an irrational number. To how
       | many places, I wondered, did frustrated nature factor pi? And I
       | reached the decision right at that moment that nature didn't use
       | pi," reads his objection in a New Yorker profile.
        
         | daniel-cussen wrote:
         | A bubble factors pi as it moves and deforms and reforms. Not in
         | _decimal_ , not in a numerical base...in unary.
        
           | nsajko wrote:
           | What does "factor" even mean here?
           | 
           | The unary base is only good for natural numbers (and
           | isomorphic sets), right?
        
             | daniel-cussen wrote:
             | It's an analog approximation of a sphere against the error
             | induced by air motion, and gravity.
        
           | dlivingston wrote:
           | I'm not sure I totally get what you're saying - can you
           | explain more?
        
             | daniel-cussen wrote:
             | So a bubble is unary in that it represents pi with single
             | molecules in a circle. Then, forces tug at it--like gravity
             | a tiny bit, but moreso wind and especially the hyperlocal
             | flow of air driven by eg temperature (and particle
             | concentration) that want it to not be spherical. But the
             | bubble membrane wants to be spherical because that's its
             | most stable shape. Here we're thinking of big huge bubbles,
             | those exemplify this more, bubbles like 20 cm in diameter.
             | So it's a tug of war between the air and the bubble, with
             | the air tending to infinitely deformed and therefore
             | inescapably burst bubble and the bubble tending to pi.
        
             | Rebelgecko wrote:
             | I think this is roughly equivalent to their point: Pi is a
             | rational number, as long as you're in base-pi
        
         | L_226 wrote:
         | Pi is only irrational in base-10 (edit: yes and the rest of
         | them, I know), if you use base-pi it's just "10". BAM!
         | irrationality gone :)
         | 
         | /s
        
           | xcambar wrote:
           | have there been been studies about non-integer bases? I guess
           | so, but I'd be curious what kind of properties they have...
           | especially with irrationals...
        
         | ithkuil wrote:
         | Well, we don't really know if nature/reality has an infinite
         | precision. Perhaps you don't need an irrational Pi to compute
         | everything up to maximum accuracy. That said, the irrational
         | number Pi in its mathematical abstraction is extremely useful
         | and just as "real" in its abstract mathematical domain.
         | 
         | Not every step of math has to be mapped to something physically
         | real in order to math to be useful to describe the real world.
         | 
         | Imaginary numbers per se may not have a direct mapping to any
         | physical magnitude, but complex numbers nevertheless are very
         | useful to accurately describe real world phenomena. You just
         | don't need to focus in the wrong detail and lose the bigger
         | picture off sight.
        
           | cratermoon wrote:
           | > Perhaps you don't need an irrational Pi to compute
           | everything up to maximum accuracy
           | 
           | "For JPL's highest accuracy calculations, which are for
           | interplanetary navigation, we use 3.141592653589793. Let's
           | look at this a little more closely to understand why we don't
           | use more decimal places. I think we can even see that there
           | are no physically realistic calculations scientists ever
           | perform for which it is necessary to include nearly as many
           | decimal points as you present."
           | 
           | https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2016/3/16/how-many-
           | decimal...
        
           | civilized wrote:
           | What's baffling to me is the idea that nature manipulates
           | numbers but not irrational ones.
           | 
           | This only makes sense if you assume nature must be a digital
           | computer.
        
         | Isamu wrote:
         | There's a great book on Mathematical Cranks where one of the
         | recurring themes is that the intuition must always be correct,
         | and anything that seems counterintuitive is abhorrent and must
         | be wrong.
        
           | Gordonjcp wrote:
           | They must *hate* the Monty Hall Problem.
        
           | actionablefiber wrote:
           | I think this is an okay belief to have if you approach it
           | from the bottom up instead of the top down. If something is
           | counterintuitive, then you shouldn't write it off as a hacky
           | asterisk in your head, you should improve your understanding
           | of the domain in question so that it becomes intuitive.
        
             | Isamu wrote:
             | Agreed that intuition can be useful, same as making a guess
             | or going with your "gut feeling".
             | 
             | A crank turns that useful but possibly misleading thing
             | into a crusade where truth is being suppressed by the
             | establishment.
        
         | sdwr wrote:
         | Makes sense that he's best known for constructing spheres out
         | of straight lines then.
        
       | classified wrote:
       | Not about the Prophet synthesizer. I am disappointed.
        
       | rrr999 wrote:
       | Reminds me of a lot of "prophets" today.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-08-27 23:00 UTC)