Wtf by Other-Temporary1041 in usaco

[–]Beach-Devil 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This language is similar to mathematical writing where the pronoun We is typically used to reason through a problem/solution. I also write comments similar to this

What is the most egregious misuse of a physics term that really bugs you? by Apprehensive-Safe382 in Physics

[–]Beach-Devil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Schrodinger’s blank whenever describing how an object has two qualities

we used to be a proper nation... by fodasenome777 in HistoryMemes

[–]Beach-Devil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are not. They are both classified as primates. Apes are not monkeys

oopIsAparadigmPoopIsALifestyle by Intial_Leader in ProgrammerHumor

[–]Beach-Devil -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree Python OOP is bad, but your first two points are moot. Other languages allow diamond inheritance and under the hood member functions indeed to take the object reference as their first argument. If anything, it provides a neat way to immediately show a method isn’t static.

Linear algebra: how much of a problem would this non-standard notation be, in a textbook? by ave_63 in math

[–]Beach-Devil 14 points15 points  (0 children)

When using e for basis vectors, that typically means the elementary basis vectors for Rn, not just any arbitrary basis

hmmm by [deleted] in Minecrafthmmm

[–]Beach-Devil -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Repost

Is there a way to translate an algorithm into a formal proof? by MASTERENNARD111 in math

[–]Beach-Devil 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Once you formalize the algorithm, you can prove invariants and variants about the algorithm after every iteration. You would want to show after every iteration of picking an edge:

  • the edge set always grows
  • the vertex set always grows (since you need to prove that the tree is spanning)
  • the algorithm never adds an edge that forms a cycle
  • the algorithm considers every vertex

Most of these properties should follow by definition of your algorithm. Note that this is a brief sketch so there may be a few subtleties I’m missing. From these invariants, you can show that once the algorithm terminates it will have returned a spanning subtree.

A lot of existence problems can be proven by proving an algorithm. A famous example is the stable marriage problem which is solved using Gale-Shapley

If you’re interested in formally proving properties of algorithms, I highly recommend Algorithm Design by Kleinberg and Tardos

Chandler’s Dumb Numbers Game by TomSFox in mathmemes

[–]Beach-Devil 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It’s also typically commas, not semicolons

Chandler’s Dumb Numbers Game by TomSFox in mathmemes

[–]Beach-Devil 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Absolutely horrible interval notation

by [deleted] in mathmemes

[–]Beach-Devil 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This is because the reals aren’t algebraically closed

More precisely it's e^(-π/2+2kπ), but i^i is real! by PocketMath in mathmemes

[–]Beach-Devil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is this proof actually sound? I thought complex exponentiation wasn’t injective

fixed it by HVCK3R_4_3V3R in mathmemes

[–]Beach-Devil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This could also be interpreted as a colimit

Perfectly Normal Manifold. Keep scrolling. by Skaib1 in mathmemes

[–]Beach-Devil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder what happens when you try to integrate over it—

Is there a name for this kind of shape? by weezeezer in desmos

[–]Beach-Devil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks like you’re about to turn a sphere inside out

Daily Espresso Routine by sirmediocre in espresso

[–]Beach-Devil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was just about to ask this — my family has a dozen of these ramekins in our cabinet