No denominators for zero divisors in the localization of any ring!!! [English: No denominators where you can multiply the denominator by anything nonzero to get zero.]
Technically, many definitions of localization do allow for zero/zero divisors to be included (we can use any multiplicatively closed set) however by the definition of localization all of the elements in our localized ring become equal to each other.
The mathematical meaning of a/b = c/d in a general ring is that there exists some value s in the set of legal denominators where s(ad - c*b) = 0. If 0 is an allowable denominator then a/b = c/d for every a,b,c,d.
Smartphones are what I think of as "attention capturers" which are able to completely capture almost anyone's attention span for a significant amount of time. Other attention capturers include computers[0], video games, TV, books, chess. Each of these has varying capability as attention capturers but it is safe to say that smartphones are the strongest attention capturer for most people.
I believe that using any attention capturer for long periods is not healthy and should be avoided. The hard part for me is actually finding anything else to do in a new city without family/friends. Especially on a Tuesday night after work where it is less possible to go to a bar and talk to strangers.
I've noticed several side effects such as decreased attention span, decreased sociability, decreased desire to do anything other than your preferred method of attention capturing.
Frankly I just think that many of these things are simply addictive and, with an appeal to naturalism, I don't think it is what humans were meant to do. Increased smartphone use or TV watching or video games probably almost never results in increased happiness over the long term.
Not to mention the ability to use attention capturing as a way to hide from one's own emotions.
IBM has a division which produces technical books based on internal staff, business partner and client contributions. They've been doing this for quite a long time (I participated in one almost 20 years ago). Historically they had red covers and so to this day they are called the Redbooks. http://www.redbooks.ibm.com
In civil engineering, all construction contracts are usually based on FIDIC's Red Book. This way, everybody is used to a standard contract, from lawyers to judges, in whatever jurisdiction, nationally or internationally...
I simply don't understand what is going to happen to all of the PhD students that I saw when I was in university. I managed to escape the PhD trap and find software engineering but I was extremely lucky. Had I gone to any other school I probably would not be anywhere near as fortunate.
That being said, I worry about the people who go to PhD programs just because that's what they are "supposed to do" or because they just don't know what else to do. Especially the ones who lack social skills or lack "connections". Many of my friends from college fall in to this category.
I don't even want to think about the people in the above category who get a PhD at a "non-target" school.
Its not really "what we perceive as mental illness", it's just a mental illness. It doesn't have to have an innate biological component to be a mental illness.
I can't help but think I would be much happier if I had never seen a computer or cell phone in my life. Maybe its just my personality type. Maybe its because I started at a very young age. It could be anything but I am fairly certain that the constant stream of stimulation to my brain has done plenty of damage.
This article seems analogous [1] to an article that states "I use hard drugs and I'm not ashamed" authored by someone who manages to keep their use under control. Sure, it works for them. Great, but they are not the failure mode of drug use.
IMO, the constant stream of stimulation happens one way or another. If you were born 50 years before , you could get overstimulated by TV. 50 years before that, and you could be overstimulated by books. Maybe my life would be better if I’d never read a book or seen a cell phone — but I doubt it: I’d probably have just sought out whatever the next-most-stimulating thing was and become addicted to that.
I am a big fan of the "humans are social creatures" mantra. In that regard, if something is more stimulating than social interaction it is likely to be harmful but if something is less stimulating than social interaction it is probably fine. [1]
In this simple model, I would probably say books are definitely less stimulation, TV is probably about equal (I have no idea), and modern videogames and social media are definitely much more stimulating. So, books would only become a problem in the presence of other factors but social media can become a problem for anyone.
In highschool I would play high stimulation PC games while browsing the internet on another monitor while listening to music while using voice chat. I also had almost no desire to socialize while in highschool.
[1] It goes without saying that we probably can't reduce activities to a single metric like "amount of stimulation" but I think this is a useful thought experiment.
The nuance here is that people are stimulated by different things.
For example, I simply don’t find video games stimulating. I didn’t grow up with them and I never got into them. I’d sooner talk to a human being than play a video game any day.
However, I find books SIGNIFICANTLY more stimulating than social interaction. (Go figure, lol).
I agree with your mental model that humans are social creatures and that if something is more stimulating than social interaction it is likely to be harmful. The nuance is that for some people — like me — video games are LESS stimulating than social interaction, while books are MORE stimulating. That’s why for me personally video games don’t harm me but books — according to your model — do.
Brains are weird. I self-medicate with words and sentences. Am I a “book addict” like some people are “video game addicts”? Or am I just a relatively bookish individual? or both? I think both :)
-non-recovered book addict in the tortured throes of a relapse on literature
My question was meant to be: why is talking to people on voice chat/text/whatever internet technology not considered socializing? What is it if not socializing?
The problem with the whole "screen time" premise (and maybe this is her whole point) is that there's no differentiation made between good and bad screen time. Just looking at someone who's looking at a screen, it's impossible to tell what they're doing. Or before that, before phones became smart (but after they became mobile), I can recall just seeing someone in the store, talking loudly on their phone, and being like "what a douche." But it could be their nearly-deaf mother calling them from her deathbed or something.
Tech was supposed to make life easier but it ended up giving more power to people who make life harder - criminals, bad bosses, corrupt politicians, communist dictators.
One feature that would be useful for me would be the ability to convert a video to a PGN of the game. This could, for example, be used to strip game data from streamed chess en masse and then analyze the chess games in aggregate.
Technically, many definitions of localization do allow for zero/zero divisors to be included (we can use any multiplicatively closed set) however by the definition of localization all of the elements in our localized ring become equal to each other.
The mathematical meaning of a/b = c/d in a general ring is that there exists some value s in the set of legal denominators where s(ad - c*b) = 0. If 0 is an allowable denominator then a/b = c/d for every a,b,c,d.