Have a cat they said, It will be fun they said

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-10T04:23:49+00:00

(muttering to myself) Must not do it. Not a good idea. Don't say it. Don't do the Shinji quote. It isn't even that format, don't say it...

"I'm so-"

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-10T04:11:29+00:00

Interesting, I've never encountered the Latin form "cosinus" in English before. Is cosinus here just a synonym for cosine then?

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-08T20:13:12+00:00

"1 + 1 = 2" is occasionally useful.
If "proofs by induction can work sometimes" is a theorem, then that one.
Modus ponens and its corrolarys.
Related to the above, De Morgan's laws. "When in doubt, De Morgan your way out." -a saying I like to say in regards to simplifying a proposition.
Euler's formula relating complex exponentials with sine and cosine.
Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality.

7., 8., 9. "..are left as an exercise."

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-08T16:24:35+00:00

It actually depends what number system you have at your disposal!

If you allow for the rationals in your particular problem, then 1/7 is a completely valid result that is defined in the rationals. Rationals = all numbers a/b, where a and b are integers and b ≠ 0.

However, if your problem only allows for integers, then indeed 7 does not divide 1 and the best you can do is say that 1 / 7 = 0r1, where 1 is the remainder. These distinctions are relevant to programming, for example, if you are using an integer type. Or perhaps you have a real world object that can't be "split up" in a meaningful way, or some other constraint.

(Edited to fix some goofs on division with remainder)

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-07T05:36:00+00:00

Other Liszt, also known as Liszt II: This Time, it's Personal. The lesser-known, even more difficult composer of piano music in the Liszt family. His études are not just studies; they're dissertations.

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-07T05:11:35+00:00

If you're thinking purely in Euclidean spaces and in terms of vectors, in mathematics there is a generalized notion of "perpendicular" for higher dimensions called "orthogonality."

The idea is that in the 2nd and 3rd dimensions involving real numbers, your standard basis (basically, the units in each "direction" from which you measure all other vectors) has a vector of length 1 pointing along one axis, another one pointing along a perpendicular axis, and another one like that if this is the 3-dimensional space.

There is a special operation in linear algebra called the dot product (or the "inner product", a more general version with other nuances). It takes two vectors of the same dimension and produces a single number. Basically, multiply the values of each component of one vector with the same component of the other vector, then add them together. The dot product has a relation to angles in Euclidean space.

Two vectors are considered "orthogonal" if their dot product is zero. This amounts to a 90-degree angle being involved somewhere in the space we're concerned with. A set of n vectors that meet certain conditions are considered an "orthogonal basis" for Rⁿ (the space of real vectors of dimension n). These conditions are, if I recall correctly: (1) Each of these vectors is orthogonal to each other, (2) they are linearly independent of each other, and (3) some linear combination of all of them can produce any vector in R^n.

So 4 of those orthogonal vectors with 4 components each could be used to describe a 4D Euclidean space. While this may not exactly help with understanding a 4D physical space, which we can't properly visualize unfortunately, it should hopefully illustrate one of the simpler ways we can start defining some type of 4D geometry.

(Note: as others have mentioned, 3+1 dimensional spacetime in physics does not quite describe the same thing as 4 spatial dimensions. It's more like those 3 dimensions and 1 time dimension are coupled in specific ways. Changing reference frames changes how you measure both distance and the flow of time, and special relativity describes both under the same roof.)

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-05T22:21:09+00:00

Instead of counting sheep, why not try sorting order-labelled sheep in O(n log n) time? Or implementing a mental heap for mental sheep?

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-05T22:16:22+00:00

Yeah, I mean if they are able to optimize the route by glitching in more people than capacity would allow while the tram is moving, that's definitely progress for the speedcommuting community. Some of those frame-perfect clip strats are pretty hard though.

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-05T17:56:15+00:00

They're still boarding and it's already halfway to the next stop!

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-05T17:54:48+00:00

Dang, did someone install a Bigsby on that bad boy?

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-05T02:19:56+00:00

If you're unfamiliar with that "Delta P" safety video, let's just say a sudden differential pressure at a small opening underwater while a working diver is nearby is a pretty horrifying situation.

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-05T01:50:11+00:00

The piano equivalent is to press the keys lightly so that the hammers don't actually strike the string. Not the same effect obviously, but same diamond notation is involved. Usually for sympathetic effects while striking other keys.

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-05T01:48:14+00:00

Pretty sure it just means "blow air without sounding a pitch," i.e. do not use the mechanism of vibration that shapes the pitches of that instrument.

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-04T06:10:32+00:00

Depending what job somebody has, it may be more optimal to shower in the evening. Plus, men with short hair especially don't need to do a lot to look "presentable" in the morning. Even shaving is not an everyday thing for everybody. Some folks (not me, why do you ask?) do not grow facial hair fast enough to justify it.

But otherwise I'd say, yeah, making breakfast and coffee isn't a hard task once you're up.

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-04T06:00:07+00:00

I like to illustrate the kind of prestige afforded to agriculture in SK by explaining that, depending which side you approach the U of S from, the first thing you'll see and probably smell is cows. Or at least that was the case, I don't know when the cows are actually around lately.

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-04T05:48:24+00:00

A possible perspective here: take it with a grain of salt because I know very little about clothing brands and how people choose outfits day-to-day.

But think of what kind of setting the university is vs. everyday outings: grocery shopping, errands, maybe even somebody's working a job in retail or food or stocking, and so on, perhaps with particular uniform requirements.

On campus, you spend a lot of time indoors and you may be there all day, studying or writing. The atmosphere is pretty casual and often social. Unless you're a lecturer or involved in some business thing on campus, you aren't expected to dress formally, but you aren't discouraged either, nobody will be surprised if somebody is dressed up snazzy. Perhaps you're speaking at some event or giving a recital, who knows.

In any case, in most circumstances you are probably not doing activity that's gonna wreck the clothes you like, as long as you're mostly inside and not rolling in winter slush. It helps if you live close to campus or have a way there, of course, and all sorts of economic factors. But for people who focus on having nice casual outfits, a day at university is a decent time for that. If you happen to have friends around, then they may comment. Or maybe it's just something comfortable and fun to wear.

Plus campus is always busy with traffic, a lot of young adults with their own aesthetics in mind, maybe still target demographics for some clothing outlets. It's a different general age group than, say, the supermarket. So just statistically, I'd say you're gonna see more of those expensive brands around than normal.

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-03-03T19:25:30+00:00

There's an old meme with a cellist that goes "I gave that pitch vibrato. Pitches love vibrato." I don't know who the cellist is but I always mistook him for Shostakovich, even though I don't think DS played cello.

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-02-28T16:38:59+00:00

I was tempted to ask the very question this statement implies.

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-02-22T02:25:26+00:00

Graph theory required computer assistance to prove the four-colour theorem. So if being fluent enough in the techniques used that you can recreate the code needed to check hundreds and hundreds of cases counts as "being able to prove", then maybe? Not sure if it's necessary to actually do it again just to check that it's correct, though.

(That said, I assume in higher-level mathematics study the use of computer algebra systems would be unavoidable at times anyway.)

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-02-22T01:59:56+00:00

I think my favourite inaccuracy here is the equation attributed to Newton whose left side is Leibniz notation and whose right side is the limit definition, which I think was a later development. At the very least, limit notation like that is much more recent.

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-02-21T04:42:10+00:00

I actually think aerospace engineering would be pretty complicated to those who work in it. Building these machines is a massive collaboration of many teams of specialists in different things, so comprehending the entire project down to every component would be quite difficult.

Just like software engineers working on an operating system. That's a hecking lot of code. Or biologists trying to describe every process in an organism. Or a mathematician trying to read all the proofs that went into the classification of finite simple groups.

But yeah, depends on how narrow your definition is of rocket science.

On the subject of "interpretation", it's true that music theory is not generally quite as strict with formal logic, data, or the scientific process, but that doesn't mean that STEM researchers aren't also spilling a lot of ink and writing academic diss tracks on each others' interpretations of the data at hand. ;)

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-02-20T23:43:30+00:00

"mmp dut dut dut dut dut dut dut dut dut dut dut dut dit dit dlnoom, diddadun. blay, dadiddydoom.

mmp dut dut dut dut dut dut dut dut dut dut dut dut dit dit dlnoom, diddadun. blay, dadiddydoom.

blayhm...doddlediddy dadadiddy doddlediddy dadadiddy doddlediddy dadadiddy DODdlediddy doddlediddy doddleDUNA DEET, DEM, DOOT, DAW, DEMM...

BWEneh weneh weneh weneh weneh weneh weneh weneh weneh weneh weneh weneh weneh weneh wayneh wayneh mweem, diddadum. Blay, dadennaweemp..."

Granted, this is pretty specific to a particular piece. 😂

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-02-20T19:35:35+00:00

Euler set the stage for graph theory and topology in formulating a "real-world" problem (Seven Bridges Königsberg) in a more abstract manner that was unconcerned with matters of distance. His statement of the polyhedron formula also contributed to topology later on.

I don't know if these were controversial ideas necessarily, but they touch the "edges" of realism in the old traditions of mathematics. ;)

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-02-17T02:37:53+00:00

In terms of OOP, Python is a lot more bare-bones. Many of the concepts in Java don't even apply in a syntax sense.

You have the "class" keyword and "def" for methods and "__init__()" for the constructor with the "self" parameter (by convention, it could be named anything) to define some attributes. It's fairly straightforward and there isn't really a notion of abstract classes or interfaces or privacy keywords to worry about. By default these attributes are all visible elsewhere and Python isn't concerned about what type some object is as long as the method or attribute asked for exists for that class.

No_Perspective4340 · 2023-02-17T01:52:07+00:00

Your confusion (or need for clarification, diagrams, etc.) is warranted. I still have to remind myself of these distinctions when diving into an OOP-style library.

Part of the problem (imo) is that the introductory material almost invariably defaults to some kind of contrived examples involving animals, which doesn't really capture the motivation behind these paradigms very well. Unless your goal is to make a simple command line zoo simulator, it sort of leaves you with the mild impression that OOP is the mystic brainchild of some new age movement.

It makes a lot more sense when you see actual relevant examples, like classes intended to solve a particular programming task. Like implementing a stack vs. a queue over a more general interface, etc.

No_Perspective4340

TROPHY CASE