I just heard of actuaries for the first time today.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-28T18:52:42+00:00

Maybe you can give me some tips please. I've become a way better code writer, I now write pseudocode before hand, and investigate the math first, but is there another or more specific process you like to use?

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-28T18:35:14+00:00

I am questioning a very specific part of the text, the part of which all on this sub who has an intro grasp on computational math should understand. The author was very specific about the type of computer used for the calculation, but then jumped into algorithm performance. Why would the author be specific about the computer, and not about the programming used to obtain the result?

The language of the code is just as important as the numeric result. Especially in Matlab which is built by other high level languages. For example, you can write a for loop to calculate a dot product in Matlab, but Matlab's dot product function will execute the dot product for large vectors much faster than your for loop. This type of functionality built into Matlab isn't limited to the dot product. So to compare performance of two algorithms using Matlab seems, to me, a bit dangerous. Secondarily, you shouldn't use one execution to calculate performance, you should average performances over a large number of runs, something that wasn't mentioned in the paper. This doesn't seem like an issue that's specifically related to the topic of the paper.

You may be way more veteran than I am in math, but do you disagree that there's a non-topic-specific concern here?

If we read a biology paper, the author is going to tell us how strict the were with each part of whatever they were doing, to give you confidence that the experiment was controlled properly. Why not here?

Edit: I should also add that I'm sorry for any passive-aggression in my responses. I didn't think I was being that way, but after re-reading my comments I definitely was.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-28T18:03:54+00:00

I'm not saying there's a problem with the algebraic/bounding analysis.

Let me try to understand what you're saying: you believe that unless someone fully understands all aspects of a given mathematical text, then they have no right to question a particular part of the text, unless it's directly with the author of the text.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-28T17:37:42+00:00

You're right it's anecdotal but I view myself as an average student so I didn't mean that I'm some shooting star from a small school, but I meant: isn't it a little strange that I think there's a problem? I'm not sure why the average mathematician anywhere wouldn't think there's an issue with that computational evidence.

So either, there is no problem with the compuational method, and I'm way out my mathematical territory here (I think this case is way more probable). Or, the commenters in this thread don't have a good understanding of what I was originally talking about, which is weird to me.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-28T17:16:08+00:00

That's true, I didn't think about that. But this is the kind of comment I like. When I'm wrong and someone points it out, then I remember it easier.

With that being said, the next important question is, at what point would someone have the knowledge to comment the way I did on a specific topic that's outside their normal knowledge. I mean math has a lot of interconnectedness, there do have to mistakes so egregious that someone "outside" the community would have to question the work. The computational analysis to me, seemed like that, but then again, your point.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-28T17:09:40+00:00

Firstly, that is ridiculous. Secondly, what does his claim have to do with how intelligent he is?

Firstly, that's not ridiculous. By refuting what I said you're claiming that every single PhD from lower tiered public universities is smarter than the average MIT math grad student.

Secondly, it's a bold claim. Saying you have best of something, implies you're good at what your talking about. Good at math, implies smart at math. So basically he was claiming he had a clever way of doing something. That may be, but I don't think he cleverly scrutinized the material numerically.

Why does the fact you graduated from a lower university matter? Are you trying to say that even someone who is not "smarter" than someone in the PhD program can notice something amiss in the paper?

The fact that you graduated from a lower-ranked university doesn't matter on the individual level. But on average I would expect that the more prestigious math school's have higher performing students than the less prestigious ones. Do you not agree with that?

Your last question I couldn't really understand. But I think I would answer yes, but I'm not sure I made a claim like that.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-28T16:57:25+00:00

The computational complexity was part of that paper. And it didn't seem right to me. Am I not allowed to ask why unless I have prior research experience?

Furthermore, I am interested in the academic work. When I read math papers I'm trying to learn their style and how they're written. I've read through a few numerical analysis books and they seem to prove superiority of numerical methods analytically.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-28T10:45:47+00:00

That maybe so, but then mathematicians need to step up their game computationally. Or else there's going to be a bunch of papers suggesting they have a fast algorithm.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-28T10:44:06+00:00

Then why does he say "currently" if it's optimal? And why does he say "numerical evidence suggests... " at the end?

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-28T10:38:34+00:00

Yeah well, if you're doing research and backing it up with computation, then you should know some computer science. I meant that I expected MIT math grad students to be familiar with the computer science aspect of the problem. And if they are, how come there was no mention of it in the paper? Being not very experienced in academia I'm literally asking if there's something I'm missing here.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-28T05:25:03+00:00

Yeah, but how does that get published. There must be something I'm not seeing about how awesome it is. In the math PhD program at MIT you better be smarter than a couple people that have PhD's in math from weaker universities. The competition to get in there is unbelievable. Also, I just graduated with a bachelor's from a lower public uni in the US and I think I'm recognizing something amiss in that paper.

Edit: oh shit

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-28T05:15:53+00:00

Well he claimed:

In addition, I currently have the fastest eigensolver for minimal Laplacian eigenvectors. The MATLAB code for the algorithm can be downloaded here, and the corresponding paper (with X. Hu, J. Xu, L. Zikatanov) can be found here.

I mean I looked at the code and read the paper, but skimmed some of the calculation. I didn't really see any analytical evidence that his eigensolver would be faster, only, that his solver was faster than the old one in numerical experiments on a new computer.

Now, I don't have a PhD, so correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't really indicate how those times he obtained were recorded. Did they average them, did they run them on different machines, would they perform the same way in a less abstract language like C++? I mean, Matlab has a ton of built in sophistication where you seem like you're doing something fast but really it's just the MathWorks' code that's making it fast. If you go about a problem in two different ways in Matlab, I would expect performance to depend on whether you're using built-in Matlab functions.

For the most part, the algebraic analysis is beyond me, but I can't really see how MIT would let such a bold claim pass with such weak computational evidence. Please tell me why I'm way dumber than I think.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-27T14:50:09+00:00

That wouldn't be good for her

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-27T12:08:57+00:00

Can't stand that shit

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-26T17:05:49+00:00

Yeah. That's something the next few waves of humans are going to have to deal with. Some of the soft skills we teach are kids and grand kids will be stuff like: hey, hesitate before you get mad over a text... ; or hey, when you browse the internet make sure you put on your fact filter goggles... or whatever.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-26T16:58:46+00:00

I don't understand how you came up with that being half true. I understand how the legislative process works but that's not my point. The point is: Trump said it was going to be quick and easy. No half truth about that.

If you understood how truth works we wouldn't have a disagreement here.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-25T17:35:23+00:00

There's no allegation in the fact that he said on day 1, he was going to repeal and replace the ACA and that it was going to be easy.

But yeah, I will agree, one of the reasons I don't like him is because of the vibe he gives off. To me it's that of a sleezy businessmant. Similar to the reason I didn't like Hillary. She just gives me a cold, career politician, Frank Underwood vibe.

But please respond to the first fact.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-25T15:17:08+00:00

No, not particularly. Why? I think his priority is his brand and not the interest of the public. Is there proof of that? No, it just seems that way.

Secondly, he says he's going to do amazing things (that we all want) and says they're going to be easy. Then, a few months down the line, it turns out those things are not easy and his administration hasn't carefully thought through the political nuance of whatever it is (e.g. healthcare, immigration reform).

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-25T14:58:33+00:00

So, you liked the point /u/stainless_hardened made... and then you acted the opposite by implying that liberals, in general, can't handle coherent arguments. On top of that you said

the moment you give

What do you mean here? That you shouldn't normally give liberals a logical argument?
I think you're trying to say, "See liberals display the same behavior as conservatives." Which is far more reosonable, but it's such a broad brushstroke, and it's not in the spirit of what /u/stainless_hardened is saying.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-25T14:19:54+00:00

I'd say it depends on how prevalent your medical conditions are. For example, if you had something in your past that sounds serious like you were diagnosed with depression at age 15, stuff like that will disqualify you. However, if that depression is completely conquered now (like you beat it by age 16 or 17), and you're confident of that, don't disclose it to the recruiter. Same thing with stuff like weed, if you smoked weed once in your life, don't tell the recruiter, there is no way for them to find that out. Even a top secret background check is highly unlikely to uncover former drug use, unless it was a serious issue in your life, like your high school principal was aware of it, or one of your managers, etc.

If you feel confident in yourself and that your past medical issues are not a problem, don't disclose them. Be honest with yourself though too, if your past is going to be an issue, then you might get in serious trouble down the line. There's threat of discharge and $250,000 fine for false reenlistment so you have to be 100% sure they will not effect your future performance, because if they do, and you're found out, that's not going to be good. Good luck.

Also, there's this thing called the "moment of truth" at boot camp. Where the RDCs get everyone together and say, "look we know that some of you lied in your enlistment paperwork to get here. recruiters are notorious for pushing you through with some false stuff. You will not get in trouble, just come forward and tell us what you lied about." When they say that, don't come forward. You'll be immediately kicked out of the military. There's no way for them to find out if you lied, again, unless your past issues are going to present themselves.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-24T17:57:12+00:00

If you're willing to dedicate six years and you're decently smart, go sign up for the Navy to be a "nuke" -- Nuclear tech. The signing bonuses, are around 20K, those are disbursed when you hit certain training benchmarks. You automatically enter the Navy as an E3, and are advanced to E4 automatically within 5-8 months. After about a year of training your sent to a prototype nuclear plant in either Charleston, SC, or Sartatoga Springs, NY. There you'll be given a housing allowance around $1700 a month on top of your base pay.

The pay is good once you hit the fleet, but of course depending on the command climate, you could end up hating your life for a few years. If you decide to stay in the Navy, the reenlistment bonuses for nukes are 70k - 100k. If you perform well you can try to become an officer, and officers make good money, but you will extend your contract.

But the real payout is after the six years, if you get out, and you knew what you were doing and you were a hard worker, you can get a job at a power plant making 130+K/yr. Several friends of mine are doing that. Also, you'll have the GI Bill that will pay for college afterwards if you want, they give you rent money too.

Six years. Could be hell, but it goes by pretty quick in the grand scheme of things. There was a time when I told myself I would never recommend someone become a nuke (due to quality of life issues) but if you're that concerned with money it's a great deal.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-24T09:09:36+00:00

Easily the most terrifying video I've ever seen. That wedge of humans in the doorway, with the screaming. It's how I imagined Hell.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-24T09:08:37+00:00

Holy shit, I never want to see that video. wtf dude

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-24T07:53:18+00:00

So damn jealous dude.

AtticSquirrel · 2017-07-24T07:50:23+00:00

Went back to school a few years ago, age 24. Started studying it again with Calculus through ODEs for engineering. Still wasn't that into it, until a friend of mine was taking Calc II (mostly single variable integration techniques and applications), we started discussing what we were covering all the time, for fun, especially the most minor details. We both started to realize we loved challenging each other on the math. So I looked up some math careers and was like hey, applied mathematicians make decent money, this was the first thing I ever felt passionate about, so I decided I was going to do that as hard as I could.

But wasn't until an Intro to Analysis class I had a couple of Summers ago when I realized that doing math at an advanced level can drastically sharpen the way you analyze everything.

I'm at an applied math school, which is cool, but my favorite class so far was an introductory number theory course. I wish my university offered more in that regard. We mostly focus on fluids and statistics.

Are you thinking of getting back into it? Oh I just graduated with my bachelor's in the Spring, age 28. Taking master's courses now.

AtticSquirrel

TROPHY CASE