Note to Gordo: last night I went to two different parties, so I’m entitled to blog through Saturday night without it adding to the 318 existing reasons I’m a geek.

PZ notes that primate vulvas display whether the ape is ovulating or not, and suggests making a similar device for human women.

Gordo writes about the difference between the history of Islam and this of Christianity, in the wake of Ratzinger’s statement that Islam was all about forced conversions (as if Christianity isn’t), and about how Bush is lying about Iran.

Brad DeLong fisks a clueless centrist who claims Paul Krugman is as illogical as David Brooks for using the word “typical” instead of “median” (via Avedon).

Mark blasts yet another in a long series of crank papers saying that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. Why is he so oppressive? Can’t he see that germ theory is self-evidently a corporate conspiracy?

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 17th, 2006 at 12:35 am and is filed under News, Personal, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

ugh, you just *had* to link to the post that a) I think has about 8 flaws and b) never really got finished. I sort of just….stopped and didn’t conclude the whole thing. hahaha. oh logic. I’m starting to *love* it.

it may be on some level pointless – but it’s at least interesting. And actually I’m finding that it has a lot of over laps with the computer science stuff that I’m into. And besides – you’ve never even asked me if there is any part of math I’m into.

CS is based *entirely* on logic and truth tables. Logic is also the basis of all the rest of math…. and if you find it cryptic, you need to take another look, because it’s also one of the simplest parts of math (it kind of has to be).

“CS is based *entirely* on logic and truth tables”

This statement makes about as much sense as saying that physics and chemistry are based “entirely” on precalculus mathematics. It’s true in a superficial sense, but that’s hardly the entirety of what you’re dealing with.

Theoretical computer science deals with topics as simple as graph theory and counting and as esoteric as linear algebra and differential geometry, depending on what specific field you work in.

(BTW, “truth tables” are not technically what computer scientists use. Boolean logic gates, which are based around basic truth tables, are what is used.)

This is, to a large extent, a free space. I don't delete comments unless they're spam, viruses, impersonations, etc. Shameless blog-whoring doesn't count as spam, because that would just be hypocritical.

ugh, you just *had* to link to the post that a) I think has about 8 flaws and b) never really got finished. I sort of just….stopped and didn’t conclude the whole thing. hahaha. oh logic. I’m starting to *love* it.

Great… the one part of math you like is one of the ones I find most cryptic and ultimately pointless.

it may be on some level pointless – but it’s at least interesting. And actually I’m finding that it has a lot of over laps with the computer science stuff that I’m into. And besides – you’ve never even asked me if there is any part of math I’m into.

CS is based *entirely* on logic and truth tables. Logic is also the basis of all the rest of math…. and if you find it cryptic, you need to take another look, because it’s also one of the simplest parts of math (it kind of has to be).

“CS is based *entirely* on logic and truth tables”

This statement makes about as much sense as saying that physics and chemistry are based “entirely” on precalculus mathematics. It’s true in a superficial sense, but that’s hardly the entirety of what you’re dealing with.

Theoretical computer science deals with topics as simple as graph theory and counting and as esoteric as linear algebra and differential geometry, depending on what specific field you work in.

(BTW, “truth tables” are not technically what computer scientists use. Boolean logic gates, which are based around basic truth tables, are what is used.)