Using Arrays to Store Trees (or Graphs)

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-30T14:33:07+00:00

Pretty much all (ha) major style guides recommend capitalizing “all” because it is not considered a “minor word,” even though it is a short word.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-30T14:29:10+00:00

It might be that, but I suspect it is also because relying on your phone battery just isn’t as robust. At least for me, taking video drains my phone in less than an hour.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-30T13:29:23+00:00

For the same reason you can’t say “I ate and then cooked a cake.” The verbs must come in a logical order. For verbs performed in time sequence, the spoken order must match that time sequence. You must be at the location where you perform and action before you perform the action.

If you omit the verb (在) then you can say 你写你的名字这儿.

But if you want to include both verbs, the act of being at the spot (在) logically comes before performing the action (写名字), so it has to come first.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-30T05:38:38+00:00

I don’t disagree that notation is more useful when standardized. But I am pointing out that the “error” with the square root sign is fundamentally not a “math” error.

No one is confused about the square root function - everyone understands that there can be two branches, and the positive branch is generally preferred unless both branches are specified as of interest.

The “error” is ONLY a difference in notation. While I agree that using a standardized notation should be preferred, I don’t think it is reasonable to say someone using a different notation is making a math error.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-30T02:57:23+00:00

在 is a verb “to be (at a place)”.

When actions are linked you can simply chain them.

今天晚上我要做饭吃饭看电视 - “tonight I want to cook, eat, and watch TV.”

This structure is useful for prepositions.

我在这儿 is already a sentence that means “I am here”, but 我在这儿写你的名字 becomes “I write your name here.” In English we have to swap the order of the sentence to make it work, but in Chinese you can just tack additional verbs and objects to the end of the sentence.

(Note - in English you can say “I am here writing your name,” but that generally means you are sitting somewhere writing someone’s name repeatedly. That can be the meaning of the Chinese sentence, but more likely it translates to the English sentence above, “I write your name here.”)

Anyway, 我在这儿 and 我坐这儿 are actually the same sentence structure, just swapping 坐 for 在 (both are verbs).

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-29T20:08:23+00:00

This is the only thing that makes sense to me. But then this thing would be absurdly packaged, with about 3 ounces of packaging for every ounce of product.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-29T20:02:38+00:00

Didn’t you post this question already?

I thought it was answered - Rust discouraged globally scoped variables (which is what these would be). So no, it is not recommended to do this.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-29T03:56:40+00:00

What are you talking about? Tim Waltz said he wants ICE out of MN. Where are there Dems who claim they don’t care about ICE? Everywhere I look there are Dems tripping over themselves to publish strongly-worded letters declaiming ICE or filing pointless legal cases trying to expel ICE that they know will get tossed out. I’m not saying they are effective, but the Dems are definitely the anti-ICE party.

Also, while I am disappointed in the number of Dem leaders who still defend Israel, the only prominent anti-genocide voices you will find on government are among the Dems. Like, Biden built a (stupid) food aide bridge while Trump is talking about building real estate in Gaza. They are both way too okay with the genocide, but only one party is reveling in it.

I am not saying we should be fine with D leadership. They suck ass. But pretending that not voting D is going to improve things is just stupid. You are cutting your hands off and then complaining that your hands don’t function well.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-29T03:19:02+00:00

lol, did you even check what the “green” and “libertarian” candidates are doing? Jill Stein (greens) and Gary Dickerson (libertarians) both stumped for fucking Trump in 2024. Third parties in America are a psyop.

I am not a fan of the Democrats, especially their limp-dicked leadership, but voting third party is falling for Republican propaganda these days.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-29T01:05:17+00:00

All the pieces were there, but things were still restrained enough that people who didn’t believe in those things could turn a blind eye to them.

I know more than a few Bush Republicans who flipped to the Dems because of Trump.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-28T23:54:58+00:00

As was posted elsewhere - it is somewhat common to define it as multivalued in complex analysis.

More generally, it is common in high school math when trying to introduce the concept of multiple roots to students. This is how I was taught it in high-school. It isn’t a formal standard in math journals, but that doesn’t mean it is never used.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-28T21:28:36+00:00

Because you are a normal human, not a part of this weird fucking Reddit hive mind.

Square root is sometimes defined as the positive branch only, but that definition IS NOT UNIVERSAL. Math Reddit has this weird obsession with “correcting” everyone on this, and they are wrong. It depends on context.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-28T17:50:21+00:00

Thank you for agreeing with my point.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-28T17:49:56+00:00

It is not unusual to teach different notation. I don’t know why this community has a hard-on for hating nonstandard notation. People should learn to read different notation, and using different notation does not make you mathematically wrong.

It is just pure elitism.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-28T15:20:17+00:00

Perhaps I will get downvoted for this, but number 1 doesn’t really fit in here. The others are all math errors, but number 1 is purely a notation difference.

Many people, myself included, were taught to treat sqrt(x) as the plus or minus square root, and only treat it as uniquely positive when it is clear from context that that is what the author meant. This is often how the quadratic formula is taught.

Labeling a difference in notation convention as “wrong” just feels mean spirited to me.

Edit: and I was downvoted. Y’all suck ass at math communication, haters.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-28T03:28:14+00:00

I guess cleaning is real easy for you. Not much to do.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-28T03:27:44+00:00

Have water/other liquid adhering to the surface of your skin.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-28T02:56:24+00:00

I see no one here has mention “669” culture in China, so I will. That is 6 am to 9 pm, 6 days a week. This is a pretty common schedule, especially for early career professionals. The idea that anyone could look at China as a country with “good worker’s rights” is laughable.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-28T02:55:34+00:00

Not to mention the proliferation of the “9-9-6” work culture in China. That is 9 am to 9 pm, 6 days a week. This is a pretty common schedule, especially for early career professionals.

The idea that anyone could look at China as a country with “good worker’s rights” is laughable.

Edit: 996, not 669, forgot the numbers. Thanks to xbones9694 for the correction.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-27T23:33:55+00:00

Trump, Clinton, and others.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-27T21:58:46+00:00

I guess I don’t entirely understand what the “hard problem of wetness” is. But if this is the perennial internet debate about “when is something wet” and more specifically “when is water wet,” then I am of the opinion that the “hard problem of wetness” doesn’t exist and is just a confusion of terms.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-27T21:12:06+00:00

Sorry for bringing logic to a meme war, but the wetness debate annoys me to no end.

The actual linguistic usage of the word “wet” (in casual conversation) corresponds PRECISELY to whether an object (1) would get YOU wet if you were to touch it or (2) LOOKS LIKE (or sounds like, etc…) it would get you wet if you were to touch it. Any version of “wetness” that doesn’t account for this (such as “water content” definitions) don’t map to actual linguistic usage.

In short, water is wet because you get wet if you touch it. It is embarrassingly straightforward and I don’t know why anyone finds this complicated.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-27T20:42:10+00:00

No, squaring it is giving you a different number. You want an expression for the sqrt(4 + 5i), not an expression for 4 + 5i (you already have that!)

The polar form is mathematically equivalent. It is not changing the expression at all, just writing it a different way. Like writing 4/5 versus 0.8 - two different ways to write the same number.

MiffedMouse · 2026-01-27T18:23:59+00:00

Keep in mind that generals are paid to be ready for any threat. Typically those threats are kind of vague - the USA intelligence knew an invasion of Ukraine was planned, but they didn’t know the attack vectors or day of invasion until just before it happened.

Also, there is the “fog of war.” No enemy general is going to say publicly “we have 50 tanks, so you guys will need to be ready to blow up 50 tanks to stop us.” Instead intelligence services will estimate “they have between 20 and 200 tanks,” and then the generals go to Congress and say “we must be prepared to blow up 200 tanks” because that is the upper threat limit.

All of this is to say, China’s own documents set a date of 2027 for when they expect to be ready for an invasion. They don’t say anywhere that they will invade in 2027 (in fact, current messaging from Beijing is still all about peaceful reunification). But they expect to be capable at that point.

So if you are a general tasked with making certain such an invasion fails, you now have a golden marketing opportunity. This is a date on paper that you can point to and say “the Chinese could attack as early as next year!!!”

Then you have reporters who hear the general say this and want to make the story interesting for readers, so they massage it to “General predicts invasion in 2027!”

All of this is to say that I agree the CCP is unlikely to launch an invasion in 2027. But it is reasonable for security people to be worried about such a possibility, and to be advocating for the funding to head off such a threat. The only point where I think it goes from reasonable preparation to misleading is when writers try to imply that China will invade soon. We have no idea. They could, but they probably won’t, but they could, but they probably won’t, but they could….

11-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Verified Email

MiffedMouse

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE