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


by John Baez
Tags: mathematical, physics, solved, week
Puppet_Sock
#19
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
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
#20
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
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
#21
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
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
#22
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
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
#23
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
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
#24
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
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
#25
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
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
#26
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
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
#27
Oct12-06, 04:13 AM
P: n/a
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
#28
Oct12-06, 04:15 AM
P: n/a
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
#29
Oct12-06, 04:15 AM
P: n/a
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
#30
Oct12-06, 04:15 AM
P: n/a
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
#31
Oct12-06, 04:15 AM
P: n/a
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
#32
Oct12-06, 04:15 AM
P: n/a
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
#33
Oct12-06, 04:15 AM
P: n/a
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
#34
Oct12-06, 04:15 AM
P: n/a
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
#35
Oct12-06, 04:15 AM
P: n/a
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
#36
Oct12-06, 04:15 AM
P: n/a
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



Register to reply

Related Discussions
[SOLVED] This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236) Math & Science Software 7
[SOLVED] This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 223) Math & Science Software 26
[SOLVED] This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 221) Math & Science Software 0