Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 22:07:18 +0300
Organization: Tidorum Ltd
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <lm2vj6Frf3oU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <vcd3ds$3o6ae$2@dont-email.me> <vcfopr$8glq$3@dont-email.me>
 <ll232oFs6asU1@mid.individual.net> <vcgo74$gkr1$3@dont-email.me>
 <ll2n1hFu4lmU1@mid.individual.net> <vchu2q$mfu5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vchu67$mgk1$1@dont-email.me> <vcieqn$p8fv$1@dont-email.me>
 <AAfHO.23138$5837.19479@fx35.iad> <86jzf4829c.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <vcpojl$2ads5$1@dont-email.me> <vct3av$2tic0$17@dont-email.me>
 <vctb0s$32gol$1@dont-email.me> <vctbo2$32cko$3@dont-email.me>
 <vcv711$3b4hf$1@dont-email.me> <vcvji5$3co45$7@dont-email.me>
 <20240925104320.00007791@yahoo.com> <vdaakm$1facd$4@dont-email.me>
 <vdacqq$1jf40$1@dont-email.me> <vdd6tv$23gqs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdd8d6$23nsh$1@dont-email.me>
 <ee430ac27c829d5514d5652aa2c6fad6@www.novabbs.org>
 <vdevtm$2c7jg$1@dont-email.me> <vdg6fs$2ko7g$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdh5q8$2pnkp$2@dont-email.me>
 <40853b34aae592d6cd8a19f017e3f7eb@www.novabbs.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net QXzMipU+ifn7SnSlDy/eKA00rLme2L4s/TcDWDFDsYjrrAzoK+
Cancel-Lock: sha1:95sH4ISBZiBLc6BB/GokdCHPQEw= sha256:oTcwmzi8naA1ZhPKxrfCNWyw+yUw6hKk1xo+wyN2sps=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <40853b34aae592d6cd8a19f017e3f7eb@www.novabbs.org>
Bytes: 3837

On 2024-10-01 21:20, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:51:36 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> 
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb:
>>
>>> Science is not a religion.
>>>
>>> And as someone (whose name I have forgotten) once said, "Science is
>>> about unanswered questions.  Religion is about unquestioned answers."
>>
>> That is the ideal of science - scientific hypotheses are proposed.
>> They have to be falsifiable (i.e. you have to be able to do experiments
>> which could, in theory, prove the hypothesis wrong).  You can never
>> _prove_ a hypothesis, you can only fail to disprove it, and then it
>> will gradually tend to become accepted.  In other words, you try
>> to make predictions, and if those predictions fail, then the theory
>> is in trouble.
>>
>> For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was never
>> proven, it was found by a very large number of experiments by a
>> very large number of people that it could not be disproven, so
>> people generally accept it.  But people still try to think of
>> experiments which might show a deviation, and keep trying  for it.
>>
>> Same for quantum mechanics.  Whatever you think of it
>> philosophically, it has been shown to be remarkably accurate
>> at predicting actual behavior.
>>
>> Mathematics is not a sciene under this definition, by the way.
> 
> Indeed, Units of forward progress in Math are done with formal
> proofs.


Yes, in the end, but it is interesting that a lot of the progress in 
mathematics happens thruogh the invention or intuition of /conjectures/, 
which may eventually be proven correct and true, or incorrect and 
needing modification.

An open (neither proved nor disproved) conjecture often collects lots of 
"observed evidence", either by suggesting some interesting corollaries 
or analogies that are then proved independently, or by surviving 
energetic efforts to find counterexamples to the conjecture. In this 
sense an open conjecture resembles a theory in physics.

A list of conjectures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_conjectures