[SOLVED] This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 220)

Puppet_Sock

John Baez wrote:
[snip]
> But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad.
> An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this:
>
> \ / \ | / |
> \ / \ | / |
> ----- ----- -----
> | b | | c | | d |
> ----- ----- -----
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> -----
> | a |
> -----
> |
> |
>

This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Socks

Puppet_Sock

John Baez wrote:
[snip]
> But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad.
> An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this:
>
> \ / \ | / |
> \ / \ | / |
> ----- ----- -----
> | b | | c | | d |
> ----- ----- -----
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> -----
> | a |
> -----
> |
> |
>

This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Socks

Puppet_Sock

John Baez wrote:
[snip]
> But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad.
> An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this:
>
> \ / \ | / |
> \ / \ | / |
> ----- ----- -----
> | b | | c | | d |
> ----- ----- -----
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> -----
> | a |
> -----
> |
> |
>

This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Socks

Puppet_Sock

John Baez wrote:
[snip]
> But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad.
> An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this:
>
> \ / \ | / |
> \ / \ | / |
> ----- ----- -----
> | b | | c | | d |
> ----- ----- -----
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> -----
> | a |
> -----
> |
> |
>

This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Socks

Puppet_Sock

John Baez wrote:
[snip]
> But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad.
> An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this:
>
> \ / \ | / |
> \ / \ | / |
> ----- ----- -----
> | b | | c | | d |
> ----- ----- -----
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> -----
> | a |
> -----
> |
> |
>

This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Socks

Puppet_Sock

John Baez wrote:
[snip]
> But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad.
> An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this:
>
> \ / \ | / |
> \ / \ | / |
> ----- ----- -----
> | b | | c | | d |
> ----- ----- -----
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> -----
> | a |
> -----
> |
> |
>

This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Socks

Puppet_Sock

John Baez wrote:
[snip]
> But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad.
> An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this:
>
> \ / \ | / |
> \ / \ | / |
> ----- ----- -----
> | b | | c | | d |
> ----- ----- -----
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> -----
> | a |
> -----
> |
> |
>

This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Socks

Puppet_Sock

John Baez wrote:
[snip]
> But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad.
> An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this:
>
> \ / \ | / |
> \ / \ | / |
> ----- ----- -----
> | b | | c | | d |
> ----- ----- -----
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> -----
> | a |
> -----
> |
> |
>

This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Socks

Puppet_Sock

John Baez wrote:
[snip]
> But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad.
> An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this:
>
> \ / \ | / |
> \ / \ | / |
> ----- ----- -----
> | b | | c | | d |
> ----- ----- -----
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> -----
> | a |
> -----
> |
> |
>

This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Socks

Puppet_Sock

John Baez wrote:
[snip]
> But, for completeness, let me sketch the definition of an operad.
> An operad tells us how to compose its operations, like this:
>
> \ / \ | / |
> \ / \ | / |
> ----- ----- -----
> | b | | c | | d |
> ----- ----- -----
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> \ | /
> -----
> | a |
> -----
> |
> |
>

This is quite obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Socks

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

In <df5mfp$aht$1@glue.ucr.edu>, on 09/01/2005
at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said:

>Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one
>theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few
>that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly
>predicts experimental results.

A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory
predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of
life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental
data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose.

The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

In <df5mfp$aht$1@glue.ucr.edu>, on 09/01/2005
at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said:

>Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one
>theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few
>that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly
>predicts experimental results.

A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory
predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of
life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental
data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose.

The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

In <df5mfp$aht$1@glue.ucr.edu>, on 09/01/2005
at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said:

>Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one
>theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few
>that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly
>predicts experimental results.

A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory
predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of
life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental
data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose.

The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

In <df5mfp$aht$1@glue.ucr.edu>, on 09/01/2005
at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said:

>Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one
>theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few
>that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly
>predicts experimental results.

A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory
predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of
life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental
data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose.

The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

In <df5mfp$aht$1@glue.ucr.edu>, on 09/01/2005
at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said:

>Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one
>theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few
>that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly
>predicts experimental results.

A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory
predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of
life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental
data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose.

The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

In <df5mfp$aht$1@glue.ucr.edu>, on 09/01/2005
at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said:

>Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one
>theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few
>that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly
>predicts experimental results.

A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory
predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of
life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental
data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose.

The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

In <df5mfp$aht$1@glue.ucr.edu>, on 09/01/2005
at 10:29 PM, baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) said:

>Perhaps this is because it's more grandiose to imagine choosing one
>theory out of a multitude by discovering that it's among the few
>that supports intelligent life, than by noticing that it correctly
>predicts experimental results.

A theory needs to predict known data, not just new data. If a theory
predicts that intelligent life is impossible, or even that our form of
life is impossible, then that theory has a problem with experimental
data. So the Weak Anthropic Principle isn't all that grandiose.

The other anthropic principles, of course, are more dubious.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org