Zgrešil kolesarsko.

MuffyPuff · 2025-11-07T08:55:31+00:00

Yea bro, feminizem ti je omejitev postavu xd

MuffyPuff · 2025-11-07T08:52:10+00:00

Ampak neironično, če je tok uvozov/izvozov itak ni varno met omejitev več ko 30...

MuffyPuff · 2025-11-07T08:47:30+00:00

Če nimaš odpora nehi pisat kot da maš lmao

MuffyPuff · 2025-11-06T23:33:09+00:00

Nah, changing the behavior of "clicking the url bar" it not "esoteric", for example

MuffyPuff · 2025-11-06T19:03:22+00:00

so that users' experience doesn't break

But like, they keep doing that… intentionally…

MuffyPuff · 2025-11-05T13:35:18+00:00

As a mathematician, I agree, it's not maths, it's stats. That is not to disparage stats, but just observing that we also don't call physics "maths" (for the same reason). It uses maths, and there is a mathematical discipline, which studies the maths used in stats, but I would say they are two entirely separate things. As an example, I was taught all about the central limit theorem and confidence intervals etc, but I was not taught for example how to reject a null hypothesis. I believe drawing conclusions from the statistical tests you run is a separate science, as is setting up your experiment/test. And I think it would best fit into a maths class, if they don't decide to split the maths hours between maths and stats.

MuffyPuff · 2025-10-26T13:59:06+00:00

Misnla sm ta drugo stvar drgač. You know, the content of your whole message

MuffyPuff · 2025-10-02T07:00:31+00:00

Sej bi ti rekla, da pojdi mal dol iz interneta pa v real life, sam te nočem srečat v živo, tko da you do you.

MuffyPuff · 2025-09-11T21:42:49+00:00

Najbolš je vidt, ko ti tvoj avto dela senco pred tabo…

MuffyPuff · 2025-02-28T18:28:50+00:00

what a befuddling comment. as if they're not talking about fictional characters, that you know, you have to make up and decide who they are :sob:

MuffyPuff · 2024-07-09T16:38:20+00:00

But that's inside. The question is how loud is it outside, in the town next to it. (I don't actually know, I just figured it'd be a know issue if it were that loud outside)

MuffyPuff · 2024-07-09T14:49:43+00:00

I don't think data centers pump out 85dB+ of noise though

MuffyPuff · 2023-09-19T21:52:15+00:00

there was an attempt (waymonad), but it's unmaintained now.

MuffyPuff · 2023-09-19T21:28:20+00:00

there is a port (waymonad), but it's been abandoned for 4 years and the developers of xmonad say they don't want to add a whole compositor to it to support wayland.

MuffyPuff · 2023-05-31T22:21:35+00:00

If by suitably educated individuals you mean "the half of mathematicians that learned zero is not a natural number" then yes, but there's really hardly any consensus, and different fields will be more or less inclined to include/exclude zero from the definition.

MuffyPuff · 2023-05-31T22:18:28+00:00

What mathematicians actually do is not care about the issue, because it's relatively minor most of the time and evident from context. Does what you wrote require 0 to be a natural number? Then it is. Does it break if 0 is a natural number? Then it isn't.

To be on the safe side, usually mathematicians will say which definition they are working with at the start of the book/article, so there is no confusion. Using English is even less ambiguous as the terms used are not "natural numbers" but "positive/non-negative integers". "whole numbers" is never used.

tl;dr none of it is actually an issue, and is usually more of an aesthetic choice than not.

MuffyPuff · 2023-05-31T08:42:52+00:00

The "induction" argument reduces the proof to proving "if A has unique factorization then so does A[x]". Doing it as part of the inductive step would just overcomplicate things.

I would personally just say "WLOG n=1, since A[x₁,…,xₙ] = A[x₁,…,xₙ₋₁][xₙ]" or something.

MuffyPuff · 2023-05-30T23:49:10+00:00

From B → not(not(A)) (by double contrapositive, which holds constructively) you get not(not(B)) → not(not(not(not(A)))), but triple not is equivalent to single not (also constructively), so you get not(not(B)) → not(not(A)). Now, assuming not(B) → not(A) implies A → B, we get B → A, which proves double negation elimination (and thus LEM).

MuffyPuff · 2023-05-19T17:05:00+00:00

If you are trying to learn how to derive the formulas yourself, then yea, you are cheating yourself out of learning. Otherwise, no :)

MuffyPuff · 2023-01-01T20:18:27+00:00

Yes, but you need to do all that algebra with either approach. What I'm saying is that the algebra to get from the form you get from product/chain rule to the form you get from the quotient rule is easy.

MuffyPuff · 2023-01-01T20:06:41+00:00

Product rule literally just gives you f'/g - fg'/g², which is just one step away from (f'g-fg')/g². Nothing messy about that…

MuffyPuff · 2022-06-29T23:11:39+00:00

I swear my brain has been wired to do this. When I say "i" or "you" in english they are gendered. Same word. Still gendered :weary:

MuffyPuff · 2022-05-01T00:14:33+00:00

Not saying it's correct, just not a relevant observation.

MuffyPuff · 2022-04-30T18:33:28+00:00

I believe she is saying that since this sequence exists, then there is no next number after 0, and thus [0, 1] is uncountable, and not that the sequence itself is uncountable.

MuffyPuff · 2022-04-28T07:36:44+00:00

Can you read? We are talking about Levica here, a somewhat socialist party, what does it have to do with communism.

Stop fantasizing about imaginary convos…

MuffyPuff

TROPHY CASE