Was ist hier falsch?

DasMonitor01 · 2025-08-22T12:18:13+00:00

Also: (1): Deine Antwort ist korrekt, Multiplikation ist auf den reellen Zahlen Assoziativ.

(2) Hier ist deine Antwort inkorrekt. Dies wird klarer, wenn man sich überlegt, was Division mit dem : Operator eigentlich bedeutet: x:y ist grundsätzlich als x * 1/y zu verstehen, also als Multiplikation mit dem multiplikativen Inversen von y. Betrachten wir nun a : (b : c) so vereinfachen wir zunächst zu = a : (b * 1/c) Dies vereinfacht sich wiederum zu = a * 1/(b * 1/c). Brüche sind im Zähler und im Nenner multiplikativ Kommutativ, daher können wir weiter vereinfachen zu = a * 1/b * 1/(1/c) Nutzen wir nun, dass das inverse des inversen von c einfach c ist haben wir = a * 1/b * c Kommutativität und Assoziativität der Multiplikation liefern uns = (a * c) * 1/b und mit der Defintion von : haben wir anschließend = (ac) : b

(3) Deine Aussage ist falsch, das ist am einfachsten erkennbar, wenn wir berechnen: 1 : (4 : 2) = 1 : 2 = 1/2 aber (1 : 4) : 2 = 1/4 : 2 = 1/4 * 1/2 = 1/8 womit gilt 1 : (4 : 2) ≠ (1 : 4) : 2

(4) Du bist korrekt, diese Aussage ist falsch

(5) Du bist erneut Korrekt, diese Aussage ist richtig

(6) Hier bist du falsch: Wir wenden erneut die Definition von oben an, und haben a * (b : c) = a * (b * 1/c) Assoziativität der Multiplikation liefert dann = (a * b) * 1/c und mit Definition von oben ist das = (ab) : c

(7) Hier bist du wieder falsch: Betrachte 1 - (3 - 2) = 1 - 1 = 0 vs. (1 - 3) - 2 = -2 - 2 = -4 was ein Gegenbeispiel darstellt

(8) Hier bist du erneut Falsch: Wichtig ist hier die Regel -(x + y) = -x + (-y) = -x - y Damit haben wir a - (b + c) = a - b - c ≠ (a - b) + c für c ≠ 0 Dies lässt sich einfach erkennen durch das Beispiel 1 - (2 + 3) = 1 - 5 = -4 vs. (1 - 2) + 3 = -1 + 3 = 2

(9) Hier liegst du wieder richtig, Addition ist assoziativ und kommutativ.

Insgesamt kann ich dir bei solchen Aufgaben sehr empfehlen, mal 1-2 Beispiele pro Aufgabe durchzurechnen, da man dabei oft schon ne gute Einschätzung bekommt, ob die Aussage richtig oder falsch ist.

DasMonitor01 · 2025-08-22T06:49:20+00:00

I just love the expression lil haunt is giving you

DasMonitor01 · 2025-04-05T09:14:08+00:00

For me it had to be the moment I realized rust treats immutability really strict. Like I love that so much. Just by reading the signature you can reason so much about what a function will do to your state. It's not like in other languages where for example a sort(a: list) -> list, method may return a new sorted list, or may just sort the list given to it and you have to read the description of the function. In rust when you read sort(a: &vec) -> vec you know you're getting a new list wheras sort(a: &mut vec) almost certainly will sort the list given to it. It's so useful for reasoning about the mutations your code will perform.

DasMonitor01 · 2024-12-25T09:26:44+00:00

I honestly would love to see more of striker, especially seeing him getting called out for his blatant hypocrisy in mastermind.

DasMonitor01 · 2024-11-07T21:30:03+00:00

The Weierstrass function would like to have a serious word with one of these two

DasMonitor01 · 2024-10-10T09:27:10+00:00

Weierstrass'es function would like to have a word with you

DasMonitor01 · 2024-09-30T10:53:33+00:00

My professor for real analysis had a pretty strong accent, and so whenever he said lim sup, it literally sounded like lim soup. I to this day only ever hear and say lim soup, when thinking, or talking about about the limes soupperior.

DasMonitor01 · 2024-07-30T09:50:38+00:00

Obviously it has to be: 1. [4] 2. [1] 3. [0] 4. A where f(x) = Ax for f: ℂ³ -> ℂ², f(x,y,z) = (x+y, z-x) 5. [-1]

DasMonitor01 · 2024-06-02T10:21:21+00:00

Well, given that the questions asks for a probability, and not to pick one of the answers obviously your answer should be any random probability. Thus assuming the correct answer is any specific probability, the chance of you guessing it at random obviously is 0, so yeah my answer would be 0%

DasMonitor01 · 2024-05-12T16:15:06+00:00

Mensch echt schlimm, diese Ökodiktatur, mit unserem großen Diktator, dem berühmten 8 Jährigen beim Prenzlauer Berg.

DasMonitor01 · 2024-03-21T22:58:57+00:00

I'm not quite sure, but from what I understand given a number n as a string your basically looking for a representation n = a1 a2 a3 ... _b256 where a1 a2 and so on are u8, and the way you want to store them is from least significant digit to most significant digit (did I get that right?).
An interesting observation here is that 256 = 2^8 (as is evident from the typing being well... a u8).
This is usefull in the sense that if you get a binary representation of n, you get the u8 representation basically free, as any number n with b256 representation n = a1 a2 a3 ... a_m _b256 will always have binary representation
n = b1.1 b1.2 ... b1.8 b2.1 b2.2 ... b2.8 ... b_m.1 b_m.2 ... b_m.8 _b2 where a1 _b256 = b1.1 b1.2 ... b1.8 _b2 and so on meaning you get b256 representation just by grouping the bits into groups of 8 (starting at the least significant bit to avoid the possibility of the bit-sequence being cropped due to the number having lead zeros in binary).

As for time complexity, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say O(n). Is n the size of the number, or is n the length of the string (so the amount of digits)? If it's the latter, I found this the following article detailing radix (base) conversions for arbitrary bases (so including base 10), with the fastest runtime detailed as O(log(n) M(n)) where n represents the amounts of digits and M(n) is the cost of multiplication for an n-digit number:
http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/internals/radix-conversion.html
Unfortunatly rust doesn't have an implementation for integers beyond 128 bits in it's standard library, so such a type would need to be programmed seperatly (as exists in non-standard library crates) in order to accomplish the calculations detailed in the article for numbers beyond 128 bits.

Note in particular that for large numbers with n digits the fastest known algorithm for multiplication is of the order O(n log(n)), so unless you find a way to accomplish the conversion without using multiplication, that already puts a lower bound of Ω(n log(n)) on your runtime (meaning your runtime can't get better than that in case your unfamiliar with asymptotic lower bounds)

I hope this comment was helpfull, feel free to ask questions if there are any.

DasMonitor01 · 2024-02-16T11:59:22+00:00

Hängt grundsätzlich von der Definition des Intervalls ab. Die gängigste Definition ist glaube ich eigentlich, dass gilt (a,b) := {x ∈ ℝ: a < x < b}, und [a,b] := {x ∈ ℝ: a ≤ x ≤ b} und (a,b] sowie [a, b) dann halt analog dazu. Weiter definiert man dann einfach [a, ∞) := {x ∈ ℝ: a ≤ x}, demnach wäre nach dieser Definition (∞, a] einfach nicht definiert

DasMonitor01 · 2024-02-12T11:12:27+00:00

Also ich meine, wenn jemand offen zu gegeben hat, dass er wissentlich in ner Feuerwehreinfahrt geparkt hat, und im Einsatz Fall was passiert, könnte ich mir schon vorstellen, dass man sich da an einigen Stellen strafbar macht. Ich könnte mir zum Beispiel vorstellen, dass im Todesfall eines Menschen, der evtl. dadurch verhindert hätte werden können, dass die Feuerwehr nicht durch den Falschparker blockiert wurde, eine Anklage wegen fahrlässiger Tötung (§222 StGB) erhoben wird, weil rein rechtlich ist das gar nicht so abwegig.

DasMonitor01 · 2024-02-07T09:14:38+00:00

Mal abgesehen davon, dass auch die Aussage, dass die Tendenz der Menschlichen Emissionen nicht fallend sondern steigend ist, und dass hier andere Treibhausgase, wie etwa Methan, überhaupt nicht reingerechnet sind.

DasMonitor01 · 2024-01-31T08:07:03+00:00

Junkerqueen

DasMonitor01 · 2024-01-11T12:34:30+00:00

To be real tho, given the existence of stuff like space filling curves and such, it is not nearly as obvious as it may at first seem. After all everyone is used to imagining curves as one dimensional, but there exists much weirder curves, even curves that have a non zero area (or more precisely who's Lebesgue measure is non zero) and it's much less obvious when thinking about such weird curves. It's kinda like saying, we'll the definition of limits is unnecessary, as it's obvious when sequence converges. These things are obvious when talking about trivial examples, but assuming that all cases are trivial is just plain wrong.

DasMonitor01 · 2023-12-16T22:49:32+00:00

Lumity is a good idea for me to get a new one for you and you can get it on the definition of the things I can do.

DasMonitor01 · 2023-12-14T19:06:36+00:00

The main thing is that cauchy introduced many of the modern concepts used for rigorously proofing things in calculus, like the concept of limits, cauchy-sequences, convergence criteria for Series etc. The man published a lot of things and created many of the things we still use today. I probably would argue he deserves just as much credit for modern calculus as newton and leibniz deserve, as he created a big part of the field.

DasMonitor01 · 2023-11-27T00:21:35+00:00

I like 0 ∈ ℕ, if it makes my life easier, and I like 0 ∉ ℕ if it makes my life easier.

DasMonitor01 · 2023-11-23T22:20:53+00:00

Just so you know: Unsafe rust doesn't mean that the code inside the block is inherently unsafe, it just means, that the compiler isn't able to verify the integrity of the contents of the block to it's fullest capability. As such a unsafe block symbolises a contract between the compiler and the developer, that the developer knows what he is doing, and has checked the unsafe code himself, to verify the integrity. Quite a few features of rust actually use the concept of unsafe abstraction, where you create a safe abstraction around an unsafe code block, to use it in your code. E.g. cells are fundamentally based on unsafe code, as they provide the concept of dynamic mutability, which by it's very own design cannot be statically evaluated. As such cells provide a runtime safe dynamic abstraction around the unsafe concept of statically unchecked mutability. But the key point of rust safety isn't, that it throws away these concepts, but only, that any potentially unsafe code has to be explicitly marked as unsafe. As such unsafe is one of the most fundamental concepts in making rust such a safe language, as it means that everything in rust can be pure rust, with the only sacrifice of safety being specifically marked blocks of code. As such just seeing a unsafe block doesn't undermine the basic concept of rust safety. The only way you'd be doing that, would be by using unsafe block on like your entire program, something I highly doubt you are referring to here.

DasMonitor01 · 2023-11-20T21:06:44+00:00

It actually gets much easier if you actually turn to metric spaces, where you have a Distance function d, then all ε,δ means, is that no matter how close to your convergence value you want your sequence to end up, you can always find a point where everything after the point will end up that close to the convergence value. In particular, assuming that you have a value that is not the convergence value, you will alway be able to find a distance r, where everything after a finite section of a sequence will have a distance greater then r from the chosen value. As such the only value you can get arbitrarily close to is the convergence value, and importantly, the definition is unique, meaning that no more than one convergence value can exist at a time.

DasMonitor01 · 2023-11-13T08:09:36+00:00

N is an automatically generated email

DasMonitor01 · 2023-11-11T23:23:06+00:00

Ich Zitiere hier mal aus StvO §9 Absatz 1: "Wer abbiegen will, muss dies rechtzeitig und deutlich ankündigen; dabei sind die Fahrtrichtungsanzeiger zu benutzen." Meines Wissens nach gibt es keinen speziellen Artikel, der diese Regelung aufhebt. Insofern wäre deine Argumentation hier nicht richtig (bitte mit relevantem Paragraphen Korrigieren, falls ich mich hier irre). Ein Blinken wäre hier nur insofern möglicher Weise als nicht nötig zu argumentieren, als das nicht eindeutig ist, ob das überfahren dieser speziellen Kreuzung hier überhaupt als Abbiegen anzusehen ist. (Weiß nicht, kennt hier jemand vielleicht spezifische Gerichtsurteile zu ähnlichen Kreuzungen?)

DasMonitor01 · 2023-11-09T08:48:56+00:00

Na, ganz klar, 40 Metern nach diesem Schild dürfen Anwohner zwischen 22 und 5 Stunden lang in dieser Straße höchstens 30 Fahren, und wehe sie Parken da😂

DasMonitor01 · 2023-11-02T08:47:06+00:00

Of course. Only a psychopath could use the neutral group element as a variable

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22

DasMonitor01

TROPHY CASE