Dirac would have made a fortune if he had patented the Dirac equation. He would have had a royalty on every television...

>Dirac equation
But if He patented Dirac Delta no one would be able to do Laplace transforms in Electrical Engineers without paying him & his family

Attached: Scheckels.jpg (600x600, 118K)

>Laplace transforms in Electrical Engineers
Laplace transforms in Electrical *Engineering

It was a joke because the equation describes electrons and, as you know, they make up electricity

I unironically want to monetize ideas so scientists and mathematicians get dividends for their work (the rights aren't sellable). I think that capitalism is on its last legs and the most promising replacement is an anarchist collective that among other things directly incentivizes scientific innovation.

It's obviously speaking poetically rather than literally, just a way of saying Dirac has a part in the existence of all these things. Funny that he's speaking in a flowery way about one of the people who would appreciate that the least.

i like you, but i doubt humans born and raised in our society can create that society without it collapsing into some horrible dystopia

Could Peano patent succ and have royalties on pretty much everything on Earth?

You can have the successor function user, I got dibs on λx.
Though of course now I have the successor function too because λx. λy. λz. (y (x y z)).

I don't think Capitalism incentivizes innovation directly. It does so more than any other economic system, but its time is vastly coming to a close, as shown by desperate oligarchs like Sam Altman proposing universal income just to keep the system going long enough for his class to leach as much wealth as possible.

The truth is we have to look ahead. Globalism isn't stable, no matter what the Billionaires, Communists, and Neoliberals say (funny how they are all in the same camp at the end of the day). If we don't want to kill each other (I don't), we need to be able to, on a very basic level, create the communities we want to live in.

I think some form of anarchism is inevitable. I don't take AnCap, AnComm, or AnSyndicalism seriously as answers, though all these communities could exist in the future. I don't know what the future looks like, but I think it is clear that Capitalism as we know it won't last a few more generations, and we need to start thinking about how to fix it. I think with the aid of AI we can fix Capitalism and directly incentivize the types of behaviors we want, including scientific and mathematical innovation.

Why isn't globalism stable?
It seems like a pretty natural progression. History's been, in broad strokes, a sequence of increasingly less insular and more expansive social units tracking with technology that makes it increasingly more doable / convenient to interact with greater portions of the world population.

>Why isn't globalism stable?
Ethnic, Cultural, Religious, and Political strife.

Isn't that an argument you could make against the creation of nations?

Nation states aren't stable. They go to war. It is better to go to war with a neighboring country every 30-70 years than with your actual neighbors in your own country. Nations are preferable to Globalism, but no, I wouldn't call them stable.

why did Dirac go to FSU? Seems weird to me that someone so smart would go to Florida of all places

>Sam Altman
For those who don't know about this piece of shit, he runs Y Combinator, a seed/private equity incubator of startups. I recommend you learn the difference between wealth and income. Since Altman's investments are dark and generally do not pay dividends, he has a very low income relative to his wealth. This means he is personally affected little by things like universal income and taxing investments higher--he hardly ever cashes out.

Going back to the OP, let's say Dirac was able to patent one of his ideas and formed a corporation. He pays himself from the corporate profits of licensing his patents. He pays taxes on this money every year. People like Altman probably only pay taxes once.

So you can quickly see why the tech billionaire class actively promotes "liberal" policies like universal income. They would pay little of it. They get to keep being financial parasites.

As I said earlier, it is not a coincidence that Neoliberals (basically the Democratic party today), outright Communists, and tech billionaires all seem to be on the same side of several major issues, and all are pro-Globalism.

This system is not sustainable. We should be thinking of ways to prevent a monumental collapse and transition to something game theoretically better.

Old people like to retire in warm sunny places.

>He pays taxes on this money every year. People like Altman probably only pay taxes once.
You have to understand compound interest to understand why this is important and most of /sci doesn't.

is that the new euphemism?

I said submarine, not sub.

Attached: fd9.jpg (605x677, 164K)

>You can't patent an equation
Then what about the superformula?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superformula
Aperently a game that used it to generate procedural content was sued

In science you don't invent shit, you discover new ways of looking at specific things about this universe till a better way is found.

Patents don't exist and the empirical reality doesn't give a rat's ass about your patents or intellectual property.

So yes maybe Dirac would have made a fortune if he patented the equation but we need to give up the concept of patents, it really does nothing good. By that logic Benjamin Franklin invented every single thing we have built from Electricity.

>I think some form of anarchism is inevitable.
We have never been further removed from anarchism than we are in the modern world, and it´s only going to get worse as technological advances lead to a massive surveillance state in every so-called "civilized" country.

Does this mean math is invented rather than discovered?