It is incomplete in that it cannot replace older ideas of time in all contexts. It is perfectly valid/complete for use in scientific contexts. But the general population's use the idea of time for other purposes as well where Einsteins purely Relativistic formulation cannot be a stand in replacement is how I read it.
> It is incomplete in that it cannot replace older ideas of time in all contexts. It is perfectly valid/complete for use in scientific contexts.
It seems to just be saying: your theory uses clocks to illustrate it but doesn't include the history of clocks. I don't think that's quite what you're describing.
There is a distance-free notion of time which predates, and necessarily predates, all experimental theories of time. This is (loosely after Kant):
* Every thing that happens, happens at a time. Let's call those things "events" from now on. It's nonsense to claim that a thing happened, but never (at any point in time) happened.
* Every event happens in a place. It's nonsense to say that a thing happened, but nowhere happened.
* Every event MAY be related to one or more events, called its causes.
* There is an ordering on points in time, so that an event's time-point comes after the time-point of all its causes.
Without these assumptions, how are you going to do experiments, or draw any conclusions about the world? In fact you pretty much need one more, which is that every event has at least one cause (otherwise there's not much point in scientifically investigating it). These basic categories are certainly no replacement for physics. They're just the bare minimum to start an investigation into physics. But if the way you describe your physics contradicts it, then at best there's a communication problem.
Cause or pre-condition? It's simple to state the pre-condition for quantum tunnelling to occur, but as a probabilistic event the cause seems hard to define...
No, none of these points are contradicted by SR or GR.
They perfectly match the idea of events as 4D points in Minkowsky space time. Points 1 and 2 are matched by describing any event by its (x, y, z, t) coordinates in some reference frame. Point 4 is matched by the fact that the Lorrentz transform preserves the ordering by t of events which are timelike separated.
Many seem to forget that even in relativity, all observers agree on the order of events that are close enough together in space. For example, any possible observer agrees that the pyramids are older than Hacker News (though they will disagree on how much older).
What the GP is saying is that this framework definition of time is in fact a series of requirements that any physical theory of time must fulfill to be recognizable as talking about time. That is, any theory that doesn't match those criteria is not talking about the same thing we are when we say time.
The points do not imply Newtonian physics, or any kind of physics at all, because they assert only a ordering relation on events. They put no measure on those things, and certainly no absolute measure.
You clearly also did not understand the problem of trying to do experiments, or even to learn from experience at all without assuming these things.
Really, how much clearer could I have made those things?
What is a "time"? Is it a number? A string like "uyeuhwydyjghafjhbhsjahsgg"? Some opaque object? Is it possible to compre the "time" of two different events? If there are two different events, did they happen at the same "time" or at different "time"?
Come on! I make a serious effort to be precise here, and you just don't seem to give a damn.
Time is a word, and I'm trying to establish the absolute minimum common sense rules for using that word. Obviously we have to use other words to do that, words like "event", "cause" and "order" (note, not "object"). But that's OK, the point is to explain what we mean by these words in relation to each other.
To answer your questions explicitly:
* Time, in this philosophical, pre-experimental sense, is not a number. It does not have anything like a unit or scale. It's certainly not a gobbeldygook string.
* You can only order the time of two events, and only if one is in the set of causes of the other (or the causes of causes etc. Talking about an ordering implies that, I hope you agree.) If an event A has two causes B and C, all we can say for sure is that the times of B and C are ordered before the time of A, because that's what we mean by these words, time, cause and event.
* No, you can never say for sure that something happened at the same time. You can maybe order the times, if they are in a causal chain - in that case it makes no sense to say they're equal. If they are not in a causal chain with each other, you can say nothing about their order (or equality). We know nothing about the order of B and C.
So the idea is to assign a different "time" to each event. It's very different from physics, because physics assigns the "same" time to multiple events.
In Newtonian Mechanics, everyone agree to assign the same time to the same collection of events.
In Special Relativity, the same time is assigned to different collections of events by different observers.
In General Relativity, it's more complicated.
Back to your original comment
>>> *Every event happens in a place.
Does each event get a different place, of places can be shared between events?
I agree. In Classic Mechanic "time" an be just t (or an opaque container with t), but in Special Relativity you "time" as defined by the G...P must be (t,x,y,z) (or an opaque container with (t,x,y,z)).
> Why is this even a question?
It's very strange that two events can not share the same "time". This is not the usual definition of time in physics [1]. So it's a natural question if the same strange property apply to "place".
Also, the definition of "time" in a world with special relativity makes it necessary to include (x,y,z) so "time" includes all the information included in "place". Why is it necessary to have both concepts?
[1] I think it gets more complicated in General Relativity, but I never took that course :( .
Scientific consensus on climate change is pretty well defined. Is anyone saying that messages that contradict them are correct sometimes and so Twitter is wrong in this action? Corps have been abusing capital to amplify their speech intentionally misleading public on this subject regardless of its harm. This imho is the right move.
Any word on how the accuracy/quality of final results compare to traditional flows? Are process variations handled differently (with regards to training or modelling) compared to IR? I assume traditional vendors (CDNS/SNPS/MENT) all have (or working on) AI driven tools as well. How do they compare?
In general, a function approximation solution like deep learning does worse on cases where exhaustively finding the exact optimum is possible (small combinatorial problems), but can be applied to much larger instances than the exact algorithms can.
And those police unions are exactly why in many cases, an officer gets to see ALL evidence and video about a situation, with a required rep or lawyer, before making an official statement in many jurisdictions. Something you and I certainly don't get. In fact, they often try to trick suspects.
I mean, police unions do exist solely to protect police officers which means their incentives are sometimes opposed to the public they serve, and so they should absolutely not be in charge of things like self investigations and time-limiting records of abuse, etc.
But that's not inherent to a union. Cities shouldn't cede these extraordinary powers to the union in the first place, and if they already have, they should take them back.
I dont have a PhD in crypography and am not sure I will do a good enough job in covering even potential mid-level vulnerabilities. I still care about privacy and so use Signal.
Some of Americas closest allies are authoritarian regimes. Why would anyone expect profit moticated companies like Google or Apple to have higher moral standards than the elected representative US goverment where it operates from itself?
> Why would anyone expect profit moticated companies like Google or Apple to have higher moral standards than the elected representative US goverment where it operates from itself?
Because elected representatives are not moral authorities
Indeed a good point. Had the US elected representatives had better morals none of this would have ever happened. It would have been pre-empted decades ago. But we have no influence over their morals, only an ability to vote for or against them. Those elected by definition are the best people available. So if they don't have good morals that means the whole society does not have good morals. I suppose the best we can do is to try to have better morals ourselves and hope to positively influence the rest of society to make better moral choices...
All that is hard, and that's why evil like Putin prevails...
> Those elected by definition are the best people available.
If by "available", you mean political candidates, then yes. If you mean of the society in general, then no, quite the opposite, actually.
> So if they don't have good morals that means the whole society does not have good morals.
No, it means two of the worst people in the society (namely, the 'republican' candidate and the 'democratic' candidate) do not have good morals. This a slightly stronger measure than the society's minimum level of morals, but not by very much, and says nothing about average or about particular non-politician cases.
I think this distrust in democracy as a system to elect representative people to legislate and govern is widespread and to a certain degree based on facts, but also deeply worrying. In a way it signifies a failure of democracy.
I'd say "demonstrates the", but... yes? Obviously?
Democracy worked well early on because institutions hadn't yet figured out how to exploit it, not because it had any inherent resistance to exploitation; now it's like Merkel-Damgaard hash functions[0]: it was always broken, but now we (and the attackers) know it's broken and are seeing the consequences.
If these are known misleading public statements then can SEC prosecute them? I'd think these statements can affect the stock price and this is securities fraud.
They would likely raise a "mere puffery" defense. Our legal system recognizes that in the course of business people will inevitably lie. At least a little. And so puffery, as a matter of law, is immaterial.
The puffery doctrine is quite controversial in some academic circles. Though I'm not sure it's litigated much anymore as a practical matter? At least not when it comes to civil suits alleging securities fraud.
I'm guessing you have just met "prosecutorial discretion" for the first time. Prosecutors have to power to never bring charges against their friends and allies with basically zero risk.
Consider the Jussie Smollett case. Kim Foxx, the Chicago DA (and allegedly close to Smollett) dismissed charges rather than recusing herself and bringing in another prosecutor.
It took widespread outrage to reverse that decision and Foxx still has her job.
Anything smaller than national outrage against a DA is almost always entirely overlooked.
Your next shock will no doubt be about the nature of grand juries. A prosecutor chooses what information to show to the jury. It is perfectly acceptable to leave out incriminating evidence or to leave out vindicating evidence.
A prosecutor can get friends and allies off the hook or punish opponents this way while claiming "the people decided". The whole grand jury system needs to be reworked to ensure it is more equal (or simply done away with).
The SEC doesn't conduct criminal prosecutions. They can only bring civil actions for securities law violations. If they do find evidence of criminality they pass it to the Justice Department for possible prosecution.
