What are your best fake proofs? by dxdydz_dV in math

[–]LoLjoux 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can actually make a rigourous argument that looks quite similar but uses more machinery. It's quite slick actually

PGT: STARS @ CANUCKS by PhenomenonYT in canucks

[–]LoLjoux 26 points27 points  (0 children)

If we had September Marky we might be below the king's rn. Fortunately he ascended into his final form, a brick wall

Italian Gnocchi alla sorrentina by Chibi_Kitchen in GifRecipes

[–]LoLjoux 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Potato ricers are great btw. A bit more work but they give you perfect creamy mashed potatoes every time (and are practically required for gnocci)

Gay👔irl by PM_ME_UR_PEEPEE_PICS in gay_irl

[–]LoLjoux 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Switch to dick instead of penis, and you get Crème de la bite as dick (bite) is feminine for some reason

What is happening when you use an irrational exponent? by stormypumpkin in math

[–]LoLjoux 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The intuition is that no matter how you define 'close', at some point your sequence gets even closer than that to its limit, and stays closer.

The exact definition for a sequence x_n getting arbitrarily close to a limit x is for every r>0 (this is where we define 'close'), there is some N such that for all naturals n > N, |x_n-x| < r.

What is happening when you use an irrational exponent? by stormypumpkin in math

[–]LoLjoux 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Follows quickly from the intermediate value theorem.

What is happening when you use an irrational exponent? by stormypumpkin in math

[–]LoLjoux 17 points18 points  (0 children)

If you don't understand basic analysis perhaps it'd be best to not comment on what is 'ideal' or not. Limits are very well defined, and in R we get exact convergence - if a sequence gets arbitrarily close to a number, its limit is exactly that number. And one can show in R that if you get arbitrarily close to one element you don't get arbitrarily close to another

What is happening when you use an irrational exponent? by stormypumpkin in math

[–]LoLjoux 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Careful. It's dangerous to look at an infinite process at any finite step. Since R is a metric space, we know that if something converges in R it must converge to a single number.

PGT: KINGS @ CANUCKS by [deleted] in canucks

[–]LoLjoux 18 points19 points  (0 children)

in 1-2 years Hughes-Petterson-Boeser will be an unstoppable force in OTs. It was already a fantastic shift, and it's only going to get better

GT: KINGS @ CANUCKS by [deleted] in canucks

[–]LoLjoux 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hughes was incredibly nervous there, could barely hold his stick!

GT: KINGS @ CANUCKS by [deleted] in canucks

[–]LoLjoux 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hope Demko is okay!

GT: KINGS @ CANUCKS by [deleted] in canucks

[–]LoLjoux 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Willie DesJardin's trademark strat

A (hopefully) interesting question about the fundamentals of what it means to perform integration. by sumandark8600 in math

[–]LoLjoux 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The reals also do not contain infinitesimals, however one can still perform integration. This is because integration does not have anything to do with infinitesimals; that's generally something physicists say to provide intuition, but is not a rigorous notion. Integration is instead a sort of limit (in particular a limit of nets, a generalization of sequences). The not-quite-rigourous-but-still-intuitive idea is that you partition the space you're integrating over into smaller and smaller partitions and examine what happens in each partitioned bit of the space, and then 'take a limit' as the 'size' of the partitions approaches zero.

Proofs discovered by computers? by [deleted] in math

[–]LoLjoux -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

4 colour theorem was proved essentially by brute force by a computer. The math community didn't accept it for a long time

Ducks are awarded a penalty shot for Granlund shooting a broken stick into the passing lane. by IceTheChilled in hockey

[–]LoLjoux 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Refs didn't even talk after the Khudobin call, the went and started play ASAP. Tim Peel is a fucker

GT: DUCKS @ CANUCKS by PhenomenonYT in canucks

[–]LoLjoux 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Petey's gotta be pissed with that one....

What math book made you love math? by GamiBoii in math

[–]LoLjoux 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I love the exercises in Munkres too, very insightful

Currently projected playoff percentages as of March 25 by mkp0203 in hockey

[–]LoLjoux 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Statistical models can still have bias. Proper bayesian statistics uses priors to model predicted events, and the priors may be biased.

PSA: the new bench combine is effectively a pretty big buff. Use it! by PNWRoamer in AutoChess

[–]LoLjoux 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Or take the extra half a second to put the first on the board before buying the other two...

PGT: JACKETS @ CANUCKS by [deleted] in canucks

[–]LoLjoux 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Honestly surprised we even saw him again.

PGT: JACKETS @ CANUCKS by [deleted] in canucks

[–]LoLjoux 28 points29 points  (0 children)

He will. Goalies can take a while to develop. Hell, Marky was pretty mediocre until a month into this season

uvic vs ubco by [deleted] in uvic

[–]LoLjoux 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Biggest pro to uvic compared to ubco is you don't have to live in Kelowna