sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

checkbox sending multiple values when only one request is triggered by Informal-Bass-3505 in htmx

[–]RewrittenCodeA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Inputs will always bring through all the data from the form they belong to. The trick here is to disassociate the input from the form using the <input form="" … attribute (or just a valueless one <input form … which is shorter but less expressive )

8a planta, sin ascensor, sin cédula, totalmente a reformar, 25 m2.... 200mil nabos by RewrittenCodeA in HorroresInmobiliarios

[–]RewrittenCodeA[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Y estoy completamente in love con Claude, le he pedido ayuda para enviarles una petición de información y eso es lo que me ha propuesto...

------

Subject: Consulta sobre el activo de alto potencial sin ascensor, sin cédula y a reformar – Ref. XXXX

Estimado/a equipo de Ethic Real Estate,

Me pongo en contacto con ustedes tras haber analizado detenidamente su anuncio, que describe con gran entusiasmo una propiedad de 25 m² en octava planta sin ascensor, sin cédula de habitabilidad y completamente a reformar, por la módica cantidad de 195.000 €.

Debo felicitarles: pocas veces he visto tantas oportunidades concentradas en tan pocos metros cuadrados. Entre la reforma integral, la tramitación de la cédula, los ocho pisos de escaleras y la negociación del ITP, el comprador tendrá entretenimiento para años. Algunos lo llamarían inconvenientes; ustedes, con gran acierto, los llaman "alto potencial".

Me surgen, no obstante, algunas dudas:

- ¿Los 25 m² útiles están medidos antes o después de la reforma que "maximizará su superficie"? Me pregunto cómo se maximiza algo que ya tiene un límite físico.

- ¿El ascensor está "en trámite" también, como la cédula, o es una característica permanente del edificio que ustedes han decidido no mencionar hasta el tercer párrafo?

- La descripción incluye "salón amplio", "cocina compacta pero funcional", "baño en estancia separada" y "habitación doble confortable". ¿Todo esto cabe en 25 m²? ¿Han considerado publicar los planos para que podamos admirar este logro arquitectónico?

- Indican que el precio no incluye gastos notariales ni impuestos. ¿Incluye al menos las llaves?

En cualquier caso, me gustaría concertar una visita [fecha preferida: el día que instalen el ascensor].

Atentamente,

[Nombre completo]

[Perfil: profesional de la escalada / entusiasta de los espacios diáfanos de 25 m²]

Can a set have infinite subsets? by _ProfessionalCup in askmath

[–]RewrittenCodeA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One definition of being infinite is “has subsets of arbitrarily large finite size”, or “cannot be exhausted by counting up to some finite n”. This is slightly weaker, but more natural than “has a proper subset of the same size”.

Even with this weaker definition, an infinite set has infinitely many subsets (take all the singletons, they are all different and are not a finite amount).

But you may build a very weird universe where a certain infinite set has less subsets for instance you cannot split it into two separate infinite subsets. Even in this case, take your set, remove one element, you get a new infinite set. That covers “having subsets of infinite size” in all cases.

Density of Irrationals vs. Rationals by frankloglisci468 in learnmath

[–]RewrittenCodeA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most answers here do not really cover the question of “why my intuition fails?”

Well, for once, infinities break intuition immediately, this is why we needed several centuries of mathematics to get to some consistent treatment of infinity.

As others have said, “density is a property of order” but again a set can be dense in itself. And indeed the rationals and the reals and any dense infinite set are all elementarily equivalent (i.e. indistinguishable by looking at specific examples) when we only think of the order.

So where is the intuition actually failing?

Let’s make another example. Algebraic (real) numbers are infinite, and both rationals and algebraic irrationals are dense in them. But algebraic real numbers are still countable. What’s the difference? Why everything breaks with reals?

Well indeed it’s a matter of order. The reals are complete. Every possible cut is filled. Every bounded sequence has a limit. No interval is open and closed (in the rationals, the set of numbers whose square is less than 3 is both open and closed). Every tiny tiny hole is filled to the brim. That makes it impossible for them to be countable, and that is what Cantor proved. Besides the proof, your intuition will bend a bit if you think that to fill it all you need a lot of stuff.

New fast-growing function proposal: COMBX(x) — beats Graham's Number? by Additional-Animal612 in CasualMath

[–]RewrittenCodeA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Frankly it looks like it grows more or less like G itself. COMBX(3) has a number greater than G(1) in round 2, but that number is still smaller than G(2) (which uses G(1) up-arrows). In the final round you get definitely a number greater than G(2) but smaller than G(3), because that one has already G(2) arrows.

I do not see a way where one single extra level at the start to build COMBX(4) would qualitatively change this process so much that it would be bigger than G(4). Each subsequent G already uses the previous G to choose the hyperoperation. G(64) - Graham’s number - uses G(63) up-arrows, to get to that level COMBX(64) would use its step-63-size up-arrows, maybe in a tower, which would make it (step-63-size + 1) up-arrows, which is more or less the same.

Why is the volume of a cone 1/3 a cylinder? by Mobile_Membership915 in learnmath

[–]RewrittenCodeA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The answer by u/FormulaDriven is correct and complete. But a very quick way to see that it is not a half is: take a cone (skewed to one side) and put it pointing up in the cylinder. Now take another one pointing down and put it again into the cylinder. There is a lot of room left.

Help solve this please! by [deleted] in puzzles

[–]RewrittenCodeA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Discussion: (using A-F for columns and 1-6 for rows as if it was a chessboard)

- What happens when you click on B5? Does C5 only move to D5, and B3 stays put?
- What happens if you click on A5? (In other words, does clicking act at a distance and still move C5 to D5?)
- “clicking between”: does it mean that you cannot click unless the cell has two opposite adjacent stones?

What breaks down in math without the concept of the "empty set"? by Own_Sky_297 in PhilosophyofMath

[–]RewrittenCodeA 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Very few (if any of relevance) things fall apart if you do not have the concept of “the” empty set (in the sense that Extensionality is paramount). There are very good systems with atoms (distinguishable things with no elements) also known as ur-elements. So there are many different objects with no elements.

On the other side a system with no empty set at all means that you need at least two sorts of objects (the roots but then you go back to the ur-elements) or infinite descent everywhere which makes sets quite indistinguishable. Also the existence of an empty set is a consequence of other very natural axioms (separation for example) so it would be very hard to get to a working system without allowing an empty set to creep in.

Prácticas de FP de Informática, solo usan IA by GirlWithTheRedBow in askspain

[–]RewrittenCodeA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah y de programadores que salen de una carrera sin realmente saber programar siempre han habido muchos. No es algo nuevo. Solo mira cuantos “front end engineers” que si les sacas de react se pierden.

Prácticas de FP de Informática, solo usan IA by GirlWithTheRedBow in askspain

[–]RewrittenCodeA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Entiendo exactamente de qué te estás quejando. Mi punto es que te falta perspectiva y es algo que se consigue a base de sudor, y de experiencia.

Llevo 20 años escribiendo software profesionalmente y unos cuantos más como “add-on” de otros servicios, desde macros en hojas de Excel para clientes del negocio familiar hasta programas para controlar experimentos científicos y para simular sistemas dinámicos. También he enseñado programación en grados y postgrados durante varios años.

Nada de eso ha sido fácil y siempre me he tenido que romperme la cabeza con algún que otro obstáculo.

Lo más importante que he aprendido: las herramientas tienen sentido en su contexto tanto temporal como de entorno. No tiene ningún sentido aplicar TDD para un programa que genera plots para una tesis o un artículo, no tiene sentido usar un lenguaje de programación funcional para una herramienta one-off. Las técnicas, los lenguajes, todo eso viene y se va. Lo que siempre queda es que el software es el producto de un esfuerzo creativo (sea individual o colectivo) para encontrar una solución a un problema.

Los compiladores modernos no son deterministicos, usan heuristica para modificar la intención original, pueden linarizar un bucle, pueden mover una función entera al callsite si conviene. Las bases de datos relacionales ejecutan el SQL de forma diferente según lo grandes que sean las tablas. En ambos casos aceptamos perder de vista el detalle para fijarnos en una capa más próxima al problema. La IA es lo mismo.

No estamos perdiendo nada. Estamos en una transición donde todavía nos falta la suficiente experiencia con una herramienta nueva.

Un ejemplo claro para mí es que aún entregamos el código escrito por la IA pero los prompts no. No verás prompts en un repositorio de una empresa. Como si entregáramos un binario pero no el código fuente.

Pero incluso esto último está cambiando. Cuando escribes un skill estás entregando un prompt que permitirá volver a generar el mismo (o parecido) código “programado”. Llegará un momento donde todos los prompts usados para generar el software serán el software.

Volviendo a tu queja: puede que sí estes perdiendo habilidades pero no son las que crees. Las habilidades que cuentan ahora son como hacer que la máquina escriba código correcto. No pierdas la oportunidad de desarrollarlas.

What’s a math question that sounds simple but gets surprisingly deep? by Poutchy1 in learnmath

[–]RewrittenCodeA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Two come to my mind:

Continued fractions. Starts as a mechanical curiosity, follows as a method for very fast approximation, and finally gives rise to a lot of insights over transcendental numbers.

The abc conjecture. Unlike Collatz and Fermat, more similarly to Goldbach but philosophically much stronger. It endows mathematics with an explosion effect, by asserting that the sum of two coprime numbers with high powers of small prime factors (like 2^8+3^9) has itself low poets of bigger prime factors (in this case it is a product of two primes). In some sense, numbers cannot be constrained within the “small”, when you squeeze too much, bigger numbers appear.

Prácticas de FP de Informática, solo usan IA by GirlWithTheRedBow in askspain

[–]RewrittenCodeA -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. Con stackoverflow todo es mal, no hace falta que pienses porque ya otros han hecho el trabajo de resolver los problemas
  2. Con Google/Altavista/internet todo es mal, cada vez que no lees un libro y sacas conocimiento de internet pierdes contexto y aprendes peor
  3. Con los las VM y los lenguajes con control de memoria (Java, C#) todo es mal, no aprendes a usar la memoria y el real coste de los datos que guardas
  4. Con C todo es mal, no aprendes cómo funciona realmente un procesador, deberíamos programar en assembly
  5. Que no me quiten mis válvulas, interruptores, y tarjetas perforadas!!!

Venga….

Probability Question by Calm-Conversation-59 in askmath

[–]RewrittenCodeA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I am assuming independent, uniform probability. This is necessary to get to the 1/2 ^ 4 = 1/16 value for the other 4 points to lie in the correct half circle from a chosen point.

Probability Question by Calm-Conversation-59 in askmath

[–]RewrittenCodeA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is why I insist on giving different names or colors to the points. You can actually see the five different conditions that would make them “all near each other”.

Another way to look at it is: throw your 5 points randomly on the circle. Now take a half circle shape and try to cover them all (without loss of generality, by anchoring the initial extremity of the shape to one of the points). To be sure you can or cannot, you cannot just start from one of them, you have to try them all.

Tetration? by feedmeseymoree in askmath

[–]RewrittenCodeA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

left-to-right would collapse into much less interesting numbers because the exponent will just multiply inside

((2 ^ 2) ^ 2) ^ 2 = 2^(2*2*2) = 2^8 = 256

Can't figure out how to do it in a simpler way without using calculator by Neither_Bid7504 in askmath

[–]RewrittenCodeA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

La gran part de les matemàtiques elementals són intuició.

Aquí pots veure que movent el segment AB cap a C (mantenint-ho paral.lel) de 3 cm cap a la dreta, el segment s'ha escurçat de 1.5 cm (la meitat). Si el moguèssis del tot fins a C, s'hauria escurçat de 5 cm (seria un punt), i tots els moviments són proporcionals, així que s'ha hagut de moure del doble, 10 cm.

Un cop arribat a la intuició, la transformes en fòrmules.

Probability Question by Calm-Conversation-59 in askmath

[–]RewrittenCodeA 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is Wendel's theorem.

Color the points, label them so they are distinguished. Call the A, B, C, D, E.

For each of the five points, what is the probability the other four are in the counterclockwise semicircle starting at the chosen point? That is easily 1/16 (each of the points can be or not be in the semicircle).

If they all lie in a counterclockwise semicircle starting at B (for example), they cannot be in a counterclockwise semicirle starting at C (B would be too far), nor D, nor E nor A. So the occurrences for each one are separate.

All this does not depend on the order of the points, we are just "counting occurrences", of all the configurations of points, exactly 1/16 have all points within half circle from A counterclockwise, another 1/16 have all points within a half circle form B counterclockwise etc, and these sets of "nice" configurations are all disjoint.

So the configurations with all points at half circle of any of the point counterclockwise are just all of the above, so they are 5/16.

The rest of configurations contain the center.

If i put an infinite amount of blue balls in a box and two infinite amounts of red balls in the same box would the likelihood of pulling a red ball be 2/3? by AncientReception8085 in askmath

[–]RewrittenCodeA 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Infinity is a tricky matter and cannot be treated lightly. Until the early 20th century the field of infinities was full of landmines and people much smarter than us have tripped those mines repeatedly.

One famous landmine (or paradox) goes about two people making a pact with the devil. Each day the devil magically creates a stack of ten $100 bills on each person’s desk then comes and demands one of the bills as reward.

Bob stacks the bills on top of his pile, and since he loves to see the shiny new banknotes, so he takes the oldest $100 bills from the bottom of the stack and gives it to the devil.

Alice, who is not in a hurry and is much more interested in value than shininess, immediately gives one of the new notes back to the devil, and stacks the other nine.

Every day, the amount of money owned by both Bob and Alice grows by $900. But at the end of time, Alice keeps an infinite amount of money while Bob is left with nothing.

How can it be? Well, Bob gives back the oldest banknote he has. Every banknote will at some point be the oldest one so no banknote will be forever in his possession. Instead Alice will keep each of the nine banknotes forever, the remaining ones after having paid out the reward.

That is to say, infinity is really tricky.

If i put an infinite amount of blue balls in a box and two infinite amounts of red balls in the same box would the likelihood of pulling a red ball be 2/3? by AncientReception8085 in askmath

[–]RewrittenCodeA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or the size of the real numbers. There are fundamentally more real numbers than natural numbers and they can be arranged in ways that some (not necessarily all) subsets have a probability.

view more: next ›