Anna Kontula: Kadonneen järjen metsästys

[Tuulispää]

On kyllä harvinainen vatipää hän.

[Kohina]

Fiksu nainen.

[Kohina]

On kyllä harvinainen vatipää hän.

Kuinka niin? Hän sanoo ominaisuuksien olevan määritelmiä tärkeämpiä, joka on triviaalisuuksista syvimpiä ja rikkaimpia.

[Kohina]

Otetaan vaikka sana neekeri. Neekerin ominaisuus on että se on loukkaava, mutta mistä sen voi johtaa? Ei mistään. Yritä siinä nyt sitten luoda jatkuvuutta! Siten se on määritelmänä hyvin huono. Mitään Navier-Stokesin kaltaista on turhaa edes yrittää. Toki voidaan soveltaa entropiaa kuten vaikka sanalle skibidi, joka ei tarkoita mitään ja todeta että se on 90% todennäköisyydellä hauska sana, mutta se on tilastollinen lähestymistapa. LLM esim. tutkii sanojen (ei ihan tarkalleen, mutta kutakuinkin) ominaisuuksia, ei niiden määritelmiä ja sitten ollaan ihmeissään kun se ei sano mitä haluamme kuulla! Jollain sanalla on ominaisuus että se on lähellä sanojen xyz joukkoa. Me väitämme nytkin että se valehtelee koko ajan, mutta ei se valehtele tippaakaan, sillä se puhuu paskaa määritelmällisesti. Ehkä sana neekeri olisi ollut lähempänä, mutta sitäpä ei saa käyttää ja sen ominaisuudet poikkeavat sanan tummaihoisen käytöstä aikalailla, vaikka ovatkin muka vaihdannaisia. Äkkiseltään voi päätellä onko paikalla tummaihoisia vai ei tietyllä todennäköisyydellä, pelkästään siitä käytetäänkö pejoratiivia vai ei. Se taasen voi vaikuttaa keskustelun konteksteihin.

[Kohina]

The Yoneda Perspective

In the words of Dan Piponi, it "is the hardest trivial thing in mathematics." The nLab catalogues it as "elementary but deep and central," while Emily Riehl nominates it as "arguably the most important result in category theory." Yet as Tom Leinster has pointed out, "many people find it quite bewildering."

And what are they referring to?

Math is the reverse of comedy.* The anti-joke. We'll tell you the punchline first, then laboriously explain to you why it was the right punchline.

mathematical objects are completely determined by their relationships to other objects.
Let's call this the Yoneda perspective. It short, it says that if you want to understand objects (sets, groups, topological spaces, and so on) then in the words of Barry Mazur, you'll want to understand "the network of relationships they enjoy with all the other objects of their species." We've explored this idea in a couple of posts already - The Most Obvious Secret in Mathematics and The Sierpinski Space and its Special Property - so I won't elaborate here. (Do check them out if you haven't already! You can think of those posts as prequels to this one.) But I will mention that the Yoneda perspective motivates a viewpoint that some mathematicians - and ever increasingly this blog** - have adopted, namely the viewpoint that

the properties of a mathematical object are more important than its definition.
Why adopt this viewpoint? Because sounding off definitions is easy enough: The Cartesian product is..., the free group generated by a set is..., the quotient topology is.... But definitions don't always tell the whole story. Does the product naturally come with maps into or out of it? If the generating set of a free group sits inside another group, are the two groups related in some way? What do continuous functions out of a quotient space look like? These questions search for properties - defining characteristics - of an object. And the answers materialize once we widen our viewing angle and examine the object from the perspective of each object in category in which it lives.

https://www.math3ma.com/blog/the-yoneda-perspective


JA BTW tämä on sitä empatiaa ja se jos jokin on hyvä lähtökohta politiikan tekemiselle, eli dialogi. En ihan ymmärrä mitä ihmiset tarkoittavat empatialla, jos eivät linkin määritelmää. Minusta "antakaa määkin huudan, mää en ole edes kännissä" ei ole empatiaa, vaan narsistista.

[Pattinero]

On kyllä harvinainen vatipää hän.

Tuo vaatii aika perkeleen vankkoja perusteluita, joita tuulitunnelilta tuskin löytyy. Se, että Kontula on vasuri, ei kelpaa perusteluksi.

Kontula taitaa olla aivan liian fiksu nykyiseen eduskuntaan. Hänhän väittää olevansa koko talon ainoa oikea kommari. Siihen en kyllä oikein usko, että hän on oikeasti sitä. Aika harvat, jos mitkään merkit viittaavat siihen.

Mutta, kyllä hänen juttunsa ja näkökulmansa ovat hyvin erilaisia kuin kenelläkään muulla poliitikolla. Ja kyllä tuo haastattelukin osoittaa sen, että osaa hän olla objektiivinen. Olemme ajamassa päin seinää paska ja ahneuteen perustuva taloudenhoito edellä. Se suorastaan dominoi aivan kaikessa, vaikka niin ei todellakaan kuuluisi olla. Ja sitä on tapahtunut jo aivan liian kauan. Myös energiansaanti on merkittävässä roolissa. Ja täytyykin olla aikamoinen imbesilli jos ei tajua ihmiskunnan olevan siinä murroksen edessä. Ja se murros saattaa olla raju.

[JeeSe]

The Yoneda Perspective

In the words of Dan Piponi, it "is the hardest trivial thing in mathematics." The nLab catalogues it as "elementary but deep and central," while Emily Riehl nominates it as "arguably the most important result in category theory." Yet as Tom Leinster has pointed out, "many people find it quite bewildering."

And what are they referring to?

Math is the reverse of comedy.* The anti-joke. We'll tell you the punchline first, then laboriously explain to you why it was the right punchline.

mathematical objects are completely determined by their relationships to other objects.
Let's call this the Yoneda perspective. It short, it says that if you want to understand objects (sets, groups, topological spaces, and so on) then in the words of Barry Mazur, you'll want to understand "the network of relationships they enjoy with all the other objects of their species." We've explored this idea in a couple of posts already - The Most Obvious Secret in Mathematics and The Sierpinski Space and its Special Property - so I won't elaborate here. (Do check them out if you haven't already! You can think of those posts as prequels to this one.) But I will mention that the Yoneda perspective motivates a viewpoint that some mathematicians - and ever increasingly this blog** - have adopted, namely the viewpoint that

the properties of a mathematical object are more important than its definition.
Why adopt this viewpoint? Because sounding off definitions is easy enough: The Cartesian product is..., the free group generated by a set is..., the quotient topology is.... But definitions don't always tell the whole story. Does the product naturally come with maps into or out of it? If the generating set of a free group sits inside another group, are the two groups related in some way? What do continuous functions out of a quotient space look like? These questions search for properties - defining characteristics - of an object. And the answers materialize once we widen our viewing angle and examine the object from the perspective of each object in category in which it lives.

https://www.math3ma.com/blog/the-yoneda-perspective


JA BTW tämä on sitä empatiaa ja se jos jokin on hyvä lähtökohta politiikan tekemiselle, eli dialogi. En ihan ymmärrä mitä ihmiset tarkoittavat empatialla, jos eivät linkin määritelmää. Minusta "antakaa määkin huudan, mää en ole edes kännissä" ei ole empatiaa, vaan narsistista.

Eikö empatia olisi "voivoi minä ymmärrän, kyllä mäkin varmaan huutaisin jos olisin noin kännissä".

Skippasin toki linkit, kun ne on vaarallisia ja englanninkieliset jutut, koska neekerit usein puhuu englantia.

[Kohina]

The Yoneda Perspective

In the words of Dan Piponi, it "is the hardest trivial thing in mathematics." The nLab catalogues it as "elementary but deep and central," while Emily Riehl nominates it as "arguably the most important result in category theory." Yet as Tom Leinster has pointed out, "many people find it quite bewildering."

And what are they referring to?

Math is the reverse of comedy.* The anti-joke. We'll tell you the punchline first, then laboriously explain to you why it was the right punchline.

mathematical objects are completely determined by their relationships to other objects.
Let's call this the Yoneda perspective. It short, it says that if you want to understand objects (sets, groups, topological spaces, and so on) then in the words of Barry Mazur, you'll want to understand "the network of relationships they enjoy with all the other objects of their species." We've explored this idea in a couple of posts already - The Most Obvious Secret in Mathematics and The Sierpinski Space and its Special Property - so I won't elaborate here. (Do check them out if you haven't already! You can think of those posts as prequels to this one.) But I will mention that the Yoneda perspective motivates a viewpoint that some mathematicians - and ever increasingly this blog** - have adopted, namely the viewpoint that

the properties of a mathematical object are more important than its definition.
Why adopt this viewpoint? Because sounding off definitions is easy enough: The Cartesian product is..., the free group generated by a set is..., the quotient topology is.... But definitions don't always tell the whole story. Does the product naturally come with maps into or out of it? If the generating set of a free group sits inside another group, are the two groups related in some way? What do continuous functions out of a quotient space look like? These questions search for properties - defining characteristics - of an object. And the answers materialize once we widen our viewing angle and examine the object from the perspective of each object in category in which it lives.

https://www.math3ma.com/blog/the-yoneda-perspective


JA BTW tämä on sitä empatiaa ja se jos jokin on hyvä lähtökohta politiikan tekemiselle, eli dialogi. En ihan ymmärrä mitä ihmiset tarkoittavat empatialla, jos eivät linkin määritelmää. Minusta "antakaa määkin huudan, mää en ole edes kännissä" ei ole empatiaa, vaan narsistista.

Eikö empatia olisi "voivoi minä ymmärrän, kyllä mäkin varmaan huutaisin jos olisin noin kännissä".

Skippasin toki linkit, kun ne on vaarallisia ja englanninkieliset jutut, koska neekerit usein puhuu englantia.

Kyllä, mutta sanoinkin että mää en ole edes kännissä, jolla tarkoitin että siveyden sipuleilla on suurempi oikeus öykkäröidä omien määritelmiensä kanssa.

[Kohina]

Chad is handsome, confident, clever, and quite possibly a representation of The Great Deceiver himself. And yet, to get laid, Chad has to contort himself into a puppy. To get paid, he has to kiss ass to Windows 95 robots who wear beige and drink decaf. He spends the day humoring people who won’t acknowledge the joke—that if he could just play stupid arbitrary baseball, he wouldn’t have to. He’s powerless: no matter how well Chad tells his lies, the system determines the signifiers into which these lies fit.

But Howard—Howard believes in the system. He’s exactly the sort of person who created the phatics that Chad has to obey, who follows even the most vacuous rules with moral seriousness, clings to them all the harder as they turn him into a self-loathing nebbish. Chad’s revenge is to turn the rules against him, to show that no matter how oppressive social protocols get, they will always oppress Chad less, since he’ll say whatever bullshit is required while you’re stuttering your feelings on Whitman. The more checkboxes you demand checked, the more you favor the liar. Chad is bound by the rules of the game, but these rules are what gives him relative power: they make people trust him. “Because I could,” Chad says. “See you Monday.”

https://www.tumblr.com/hotelconcierge/1 ... urce=share

[Tuulispää]

On kyllä harvinainen vatipää hän.

Kuinka niin? Hän sanoo ominaisuuksien olevan määritelmiä tärkeämpiä, joka on triviaalisuuksista syvimpiä ja rikkaimpia.

Hän pagisee hyvin, muttei ymmärrä Jumalaa.

[JeeSe]

The Yoneda Perspective

In the words of Dan Piponi, it "is the hardest trivial thing in mathematics." The nLab catalogues it as "elementary but deep and central," while Emily Riehl nominates it as "arguably the most important result in category theory." Yet as Tom Leinster has pointed out, "many people find it quite bewildering."

And what are they referring to?

Math is the reverse of comedy.* The anti-joke. We'll tell you the punchline first, then laboriously explain to you why it was the right punchline.

mathematical objects are completely determined by their relationships to other objects.
Let's call this the Yoneda perspective. It short, it says that if you want to understand objects (sets, groups, topological spaces, and so on) then in the words of Barry Mazur, you'll want to understand "the network of relationships they enjoy with all the other objects of their species." We've explored this idea in a couple of posts already - The Most Obvious Secret in Mathematics and The Sierpinski Space and its Special Property - so I won't elaborate here. (Do check them out if you haven't already! You can think of those posts as prequels to this one.) But I will mention that the Yoneda perspective motivates a viewpoint that some mathematicians - and ever increasingly this blog** - have adopted, namely the viewpoint that

the properties of a mathematical object are more important than its definition.
Why adopt this viewpoint? Because sounding off definitions is easy enough: The Cartesian product is..., the free group generated by a set is..., the quotient topology is.... But definitions don't always tell the whole story. Does the product naturally come with maps into or out of it? If the generating set of a free group sits inside another group, are the two groups related in some way? What do continuous functions out of a quotient space look like? These questions search for properties - defining characteristics - of an object. And the answers materialize once we widen our viewing angle and examine the object from the perspective of each object in category in which it lives.

https://www.math3ma.com/blog/the-yoneda-perspective


JA BTW tämä on sitä empatiaa ja se jos jokin on hyvä lähtökohta politiikan tekemiselle, eli dialogi. En ihan ymmärrä mitä ihmiset tarkoittavat empatialla, jos eivät linkin määritelmää. Minusta "antakaa määkin huudan, mää en ole edes kännissä" ei ole empatiaa, vaan narsistista.

Eikö empatia olisi "voivoi minä ymmärrän, kyllä mäkin varmaan huutaisin jos olisin noin kännissä".

Skippasin toki linkit, kun ne on vaarallisia ja englanninkieliset jutut, koska neekerit usein puhuu englantia.

Kyllä, mutta sanoinkin että mää en ole edes kännissä, jolla tarkoitin että siveyden sipuleilla on suurempi oikeus öykkäröidä omien määritelmiensä kanssa.

Tuossa on kyllä jotain perää. Kuka vartioi moraalinvartijan moraalia..

[Pattinero]

Kontula ei aio asettua enää seuraavissa vaaleissa ehdolle, vaan hän aikoo siirtyä enemmän täysipäiväiseksi kirjailijaksi. Ja se syy miksi hän lopettaa eduskunnassa on täysin järkeenkäypä: Suomen politiikan pääkallonpaikka on varmasti myös Suomen pysähtynein paikka.

Emme me tällä tavalla pääse yhtään minnekään muualle kuin EU alijäämämenettelyyn. Se, että joku eliitti jatkaa rohmuamistaan, on olosuhteiden pääaiheuttaja. Ja sitä ei eduskunnassa istumalla toiseksi muuta kukaan.

[JeeSe]

On kyllä harvinainen vatipää hän.

Kuinka niin? Hän sanoo ominaisuuksien olevan määritelmiä tärkeämpiä, joka on triviaalisuuksista syvimpiä ja rikkaimpia.

Hän pagisee hyvin, muttei ymmärrä Jumalaa.

Siksi kai kävi siellä Gazassakin toikkaroimassa, jos Jumala vaikka olisi siellä.

[Kohina]

The Yoneda Perspective

In the words of Dan Piponi, it "is the hardest trivial thing in mathematics." The nLab catalogues it as "elementary but deep and central," while Emily Riehl nominates it as "arguably the most important result in category theory." Yet as Tom Leinster has pointed out, "many people find it quite bewildering."

And what are they referring to?

Math is the reverse of comedy.* The anti-joke. We'll tell you the punchline first, then laboriously explain to you why it was the right punchline.

mathematical objects are completely determined by their relationships to other objects.
Let's call this the Yoneda perspective. It short, it says that if you want to understand objects (sets, groups, topological spaces, and so on) then in the words of Barry Mazur, you'll want to understand "the network of relationships they enjoy with all the other objects of their species." We've explored this idea in a couple of posts already - The Most Obvious Secret in Mathematics and The Sierpinski Space and its Special Property - so I won't elaborate here. (Do check them out if you haven't already! You can think of those posts as prequels to this one.) But I will mention that the Yoneda perspective motivates a viewpoint that some mathematicians - and ever increasingly this blog** - have adopted, namely the viewpoint that

the properties of a mathematical object are more important than its definition.
Why adopt this viewpoint? Because sounding off definitions is easy enough: The Cartesian product is..., the free group generated by a set is..., the quotient topology is.... But definitions don't always tell the whole story. Does the product naturally come with maps into or out of it? If the generating set of a free group sits inside another group, are the two groups related in some way? What do continuous functions out of a quotient space look like? These questions search for properties - defining characteristics - of an object. And the answers materialize once we widen our viewing angle and examine the object from the perspective of each object in category in which it lives.

https://www.math3ma.com/blog/the-yoneda-perspective


JA BTW tämä on sitä empatiaa ja se jos jokin on hyvä lähtökohta politiikan tekemiselle, eli dialogi. En ihan ymmärrä mitä ihmiset tarkoittavat empatialla, jos eivät linkin määritelmää. Minusta "antakaa määkin huudan, mää en ole edes kännissä" ei ole empatiaa, vaan narsistista.

Eikö empatia olisi "voivoi minä ymmärrän, kyllä mäkin varmaan huutaisin jos olisin noin kännissä".

Skippasin toki linkit, kun ne on vaarallisia ja englanninkieliset jutut, koska neekerit usein puhuu englantia.

Kyllä, mutta sanoinkin että mää en ole edes kännissä, jolla tarkoitin että siveyden sipuleilla on suurempi oikeus öykkäröidä omien määritelmiensä kanssa.

Tuossa on kyllä jotain perää. Kuka vartioi moraalinvartijan moraalia..

Sen takia vetäisin tuon Yonedan tahtomattaan mukaan debattiin. Kun määritelmät saavat vähemmän painoarvoa ja ominaisuudet enemmän, hallusinointi jää pienemmäksi.

You think Narcissus was so in love with himself that he couldn't love anyone else. But that's not what happened, the story clearly tells it in the reverse: he never loved anyone and then he fell in love with himself. Do you see? Because he never loved anyone, he fell in love with himself. That was Narcissus's punishment.

You thought Narcissus rejected all those people because he was in love with himself, but he rejected them all before he loved himself. Loved himself? Do you think Narcissus rejected them because he thought he was better than them? Or better looking? How would he have known he was so beautiful? He didn't even recognize his own reflection! He rejected all those people because they loved him.

You thought nemesis meant enemy, you thought it meant the person who always opposes you, the one you struggle most against. A person who is something like you, but the opposite.

But all of those explanations are your lies working to hide the truth: a nemesis is the one who makes you fall in love with yourself. Without Nemesis, there'd be no story of Narcissus. Without your nemesis, you don't have a story.

...

Tiresias's prophecy was: He will have a long life, if he never knows himself.

Now, what could that mean?

Oh, he was right: Narcissus did live a long life-- though not a happy one. He spent his life alone, dreaming, and gazing into a pool, waiting to die.

But Tiresisias's prophecy seems... wrong, counter to the Greek spirit, an affront to logic; shouldn't "knowing thyself" be the highest virtue?

He will have a long life, if he never knows himself.

But it's so simple, the explanation. It's so simple that no one has ever thought of it, and the reason no one has thought of it is that it is too terrible to think about.

Forget about whether the prophecy is true. Ask instead, "what would the parents have done once they heard it?"

When Laius and Jocasta were told that Oedipus would eventually destroy them, they pinned his ankles and abandoned him in the woods, ensuring that he'd someday have cause to do it. And so when Narcissus's parents heard the requirements for their child's long life... they would have done everything possible to ensure that he didn't know himself.

No one knows what Liriope and Cephisus did, but whatever they did, it worked: he didn't even recognize his own reflection. That's a man who doesn't know himself. That's a man who never had to look at himself from the outside.

How do you make a child know himself? You surround him with mirrors. "This is what everyone else sees when you do what you do. This is who everyone thinks you are."
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10 ... issus.html

[Pattinero]

Kontula kävi Gazassa omien sanojensa mukaan vain vastustamassa saartoa ja Suomen asekauppaa Israelin kanssa. En tiedä, että oliko koko tempauksessa mitään järkeä. Tuskin oli. Kyseessä saattoi olla Kontulan typerin temppu.

https://yle.fi/a/3-11156284