Recent content by loop quantum gravity

Halzen's from the Quarks and Leptons famous textbook? indeed, wow.

Boohoo, spoken like a true LOSER. Anyways, if in a perfect game anyways one side always wins or there's always a draw; the best you can do is keep drawing or find another game that is not solved yet. But that's always true of any game, btw. I suggest to Magnus to try learning mathematics for...

No. There will always be something beyond what we can observe in experiment. It's inherent in every experiment. At least it's good to think that as we proceed with technology the resolution becomes even finer and finer, but you can't approach the perfect and exact resolution in a finite time...

How does a perfect game from both opponents end? let's say in a 19x19 board?

But those axioms don't work for 3+1 QFT, at least that's what I understand from Witten's and Jaffa's Millenium prize proposal. We don't have a constructive QFT for 3+1 dimensions.

Sometime it's good to have a break from reading technical literature, so pop science isn't so bad. It's better than the other novel books that are out there, at least that's my preference. My mum all the time reads history books on WWII or some soap opera type of books, as a bloke I cannot read...

Remind me of myself... I wonder am I AI; well, sometimes I need some break from my vocation. :oldbiggrin:

Why is reading OpenAi's work on NS any different than reading other eccentric mathematicians' work without the aid of AI or more accurate LLMs? At least with LLM you can follow its derivations as they are more spelled out than in past mathematicians' work. It's not any different than when...

There are two forces acting on Earth's surface: Gravity pushing us downwards and that which reacts to it is the force exerted by the pressure our bodies exerting on the surface, which according to Newton's third law is the normal force contrary to gravity. Or you might say that the core of...

It first depends on what set theory we are using here. A proof in a human community by humans doesn't need to go through all this formalization; but in an ideal world you would like to be sure that all the details are given. As you wrote it's still unfinished. BTW, what's so intersting in using...

Yes I know of two such softwares; but that's the point has anyone tried to formalize proofs like of Wiles or of Perleman's, they don't use all those logical connectives or quantifiers, and sometimes they adhere to second order logic, which has its problems regarding a systematic natural...

Well as with maths we can always generalize the equation to manifold, R^n where n is a natural number and not just n=3 as is the case for Navier-Stokes PDE. Nobody says mathematics is easy, but with LLM technology it can make the work of scholars easier, where you can concentrate on ideas rather...

Hi @A. Neumaier I mean in quantum logic as it's written in the wiki page we don't have the distribuiton rule that connects between conjunction and disjounction, which in classical logic is called distirubitve law, i.e: ##p\wedge(q\vee r) = (p\wedge q)\vee (p\wedge r)##, and also by replacing the...

There's a book that some professor called Cohen with that name. I mean before measurement we are in a superposition of complementary states; which classically cannot be achieved since they contradict each other. I bet you know simple classical propositional calculus. So 0 and 1 are just like T...

I didn't even start it. I am first trying to understand the references that are in Jaffa's and Witten's proposal, I stopped somewhere in one of the papers by Konrad Schrader and another Professor. (I think they passed away). I guess if I ever find something tangible for a proof that such a...