5
Nov

George Hotz | Programming | twitchcoq : pt 2, can we prove true is not false | Coq (software)


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

29 Comments

  • Endeavor 42 says:

    First

  • ProgrammingWithSid says:

    Sup!!!

  • MuhamaD BosS says:

    First

  • commaai archive says:

    George is getting distracted all stream. Read http://us.metamath.org/downloads/metamath.pdf and be prepared for next stream tomorrow (maybe). Follow and subscribe https://www.twitch.tv/georgehotz for more live streams | Programming archive🡿 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzFUMGbVxlQs5s-LNAyKgcq5SL28ZLLKC

  • ThanhPT says:

    Can you make some video about some knowledge easy to understand 😀

  • Kenbomp says:

    Papers are pretty dry.

  • Jacek says:

    jebaited after last youtube stream

    FeelsTerrible

  • Saeid Rasoli says:

    i left web & mobile dev because of your videos, now i wanna learn deep about programming, mathematics, statistics and computer

  • Wtf_my_names_already_taken says:

    Love your attitude and of course your music! Best wishes from Germany. <3

  • Sreten Jocić says:

    How does George make money to support himself?

  • soro soro says:

    Still waiting on a harness for my 1992 Subaru brat.

  • mrlithium says:

    metamath was great and watching you work in coq also.

  • José RF Junior says:

    MATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICSMATHEMATICS

  • Jiahang Wu says:

    I'm big fans of Geohot. If I had half of his talents in coding, I would be very cool.

  • benito345678 says:

    f = x + c is metric preserving but not addition preserving for c != 0, since f(x+y) = c+x+y, f(x)+f(y)=2c+x+y.

  • Zxcah vuujm says:

    making 4 hours programming to just say true is not false…well programming is so patience

  • M Rusli says:

    Hey dude!

  • Xenomorph says:

    You're so rude, you eat with your mouth open and so dumb in your behavior

  • Panerakis says:

    thanks for all the archives!

  • Monish Kumar says:

    Marvellous Job, I really enjoyed it!, See this New Album 'Monish Jasbird – Death Blow', channel link www.youtube.com/channel/UCv_x5rlxirO-WKjLIyk6okQ?sub_confirmation=1 , you may like it 🙂

  • Andrew Nakas says:

    Stoked for the Backspace Natural language programmer! The real transformer.

  • Jordan Diaz says:

    1:38:50

  • Dominic Dannies says:

    he's damn right about bitcoin

  • Samin Chowdhury says:

    can someone tell me what font George is using in the terminal

  • Súper Saiyan 5 says:

    1:23:19 when it speaks about observing and not observing some specific scenario what it is referring to as far as I know is that it is speaking about observable and non observable operators acting on some functions such that if the difference of the order rearranged of two operators on some wave function is 0 then it means that the order we calculate what the out put value of what the operators individually on the wave function per say gives you and being able to calculate something from a given output or understanding the output without lets say imaginary numbers then it is known as observable meaning you can measure the output you got with an operator..,.sorry a better def is the hermitian conjugate where the order of this operator lets say the distance operator on a function will just give you the distance x * function and the order doesn't matter in a sense that some function f * x can be rearranged making it observable and a non observable thing is a momentum operator in physics in elementary particle physics which is denoted
    p = i(h_reduced_planck's_constant)d/dx obviously the 'd/dx' is the part that has to act on a function and if you did pf and then fp you realize that the pf gives you some value(f) but fp gives f(p) and it still has to act on something until you get an output value and even if you got an imaginary number out it would be considered also not observable because the idea that 3 meters * imaginary is an output doesnt mean anything to us but if you got 3 meters ok perfect observable and if you still get an output value where you still need to make f(p()) act on something then that is still considered and non obvservable…I know this is harder to explain but that's just literally the first fucking sentence sorry forgive me I tried to explain but if I code this it'll come out so pretty you'd be able to read it nicely.

  • Súper Saiyan 5 says:

    true implies false only for one time or once ever if we're talking about states and also iff false implies true after stating that true implies false.
    false will always come before true and if it were denoted by some distance but true and false and then state false <= true then it will always be that there is some canonical logarithmic singularity of chance that should show that there is a greater likely hood of whatever this state or thing is to be false than true if it were some deterministic quantized value that they wanted.

  • Súper Saiyan 5 says:

    3:15:15 True, I won't let that happen though remember no one is taking that paradise from me.

  • 佐藤幸志朗 says:

    George is GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *