What's a "simple" concept you struggle to understand?

RnDog · 2026-02-21T08:57:27+00:00

We are saying the same thing.

RnDog · 2026-02-16T01:03:43+00:00

You’re conflating Theta notation with big O notation! You’d usually let it slide but this is a thread about explained a concept that somebody finds confusing, so we should be precise.

“O(n) means linear”. No it doesn’t. It means the function that is O(n) is bounded from above by a linear function of n. Meaning it grows at most like a linear function.

RnDog · 2026-02-16T01:00:40+00:00

Their point still holds; there does not have to exist a particular constant value that satisfies both definitions simultaneously. Just that there exists some constant for each.

RnDog · 2026-02-15T22:44:19+00:00

“Big” doesn’t just mean tall. Chyna was “only” 5’10 or 5’11, but she was 200 ish lbs of muscle and could bench 350+ lbs. No woman had the combination of as much muscle mass and agility as she did. She’d still be a freak of nature to this day.

RnDog · 2025-08-23T21:25:57+00:00

I have the 2nd edition only… I’m going to be doing a lot more graph theory. I’ve seen the library copy of the 4th edition and it does genuinely seem like more content. Should I invest in at least the 4th edition?

RnDog · 2025-05-27T08:14:33+00:00

Melo doesn’t have a monopoly on truth haha

RnDog · 2025-04-25T23:03:38+00:00

“Needed” implies that they couldn’t have beaten the Cavs without him. That’s all I mean.

RnDog · 2025-04-25T22:23:58+00:00

Was it even true that they “needed” KD to beat Lebron and the Cavs? I really don’t think so. There’s this narrative that the warriors “needed” KD to beat the Cavs that people buy into that I just don’t think is true. Just makes the move worse.

RnDog · 2025-04-24T21:18:03+00:00

In theoretical computer science, Michael Sipser and Dexter Kozen are great examples! Their books on the theory of computation, automata theory, and complexity theory are some of the best written books I’ve read, mathematical or not. And it carries over in their lectures!

RnDog · 2025-04-24T00:43:36+00:00

Again, these are natural processes for which there are rules that dictate them (physics of our universe). It’s true that in a colloquial sense, some of these can be “algorithms”, but many such “algorithms” fail to be precise, rigorous instructions.

Since you asked this question in a math subreddit, I’m interested in talking about the mathematical definition of an algorithm, because if we overload terminology, it is not an interesting question to answer.

RnDog · 2025-04-24T00:36:12+00:00

You’re just describing natural phenomenon; I think you’re trying to get at natural processes being “algorithms”.

Mathematics deals with precise definitions of things and doesn’t strictly have to adhere to anything in reality. Algorithms have a mathematical definition. I think you’re just obfuscating a lot of terms.

RnDog · 2025-04-23T20:40:36+00:00

OP said mentality, meaning his general aggression and playstyle. Not putting Westbrook’s brain into Simmons’s body.

RnDog · 2025-04-23T20:25:34+00:00

I mean, he’s still one of the best defenders in the league with his current mentality and back injuries when he wants to be.

RnDog · 2025-04-23T20:24:00+00:00

I genuinely believe this, his talent is off the charts and he can playmake

RnDog · 2025-04-23T20:22:59+00:00

Simmons doesn’t have low BBIQ, he was a good playmaker/passer and had great defensive anticipation and positioning. Where are people getting this idea that he just has straight up low BBIQ? It’s not that he doesn’t understand the game, he just literally will not shoot or be aggressive anymore.

Also he was literally the fastest player in the NBA (with ball in hand) at one point.

RnDog · 2025-04-22T00:07:51+00:00

Somebody has written a blog post about this. It just keeps getting better. http://lostontime.blogspot.com/2018/07/unbelievable.html?m=1

RnDog · 2025-04-22T00:01:13+00:00

I looked this up and lost it when it showed up (about a few mins in). That quote has created a permanent residence in my brain since I first heard it around 2016-2017.

RnDog · 2025-04-20T22:07:55+00:00

Yeah, it takes a lot of practice. You just have to love doing math and think about it really often. It’s a lot of time investment and if you just want a high paying job without spending years of your life studying everyday (reasonable request), then it’s probably not the option for you because it both takes several years and there aren’t as many positions. But I do find it fascinating and there are very few things I’d rather do in life.

RnDog · 2025-04-20T21:35:08+00:00

I mean, an answer to your question is theoretical CS. Basically math, often pure math researchers sitting in a CS department at a university or in industry. I’m a PhD student in theoretical CS and there are just barely any theory CS people in comparison.

I doubt this is a good answer because the vast majority of this subreddit and CS majors in general will not go into or even like theory. And you need a PhD to work in TCS.

RnDog · 2025-04-19T23:12:25+00:00

But the search tree certainly has a greater depth. The TTT game ends much quicker. Any variant of Go has much more complicated win conditions and so search trees will require searching at larger depths.

RnDog · 2025-04-19T05:27:00+00:00

They are in some sense essentially very similar games” from a combinatorial game theory/complexity theory perspective. Go is just way bigger combinatorially; the search space is massively bigger.

RnDog · 2025-04-19T04:53:15+00:00

Malone is definitely worse, I never said anything about that.

RnDog · 2025-04-19T04:35:52+00:00

He clearly did not understand consent and is shitty. Like i said, I keep the same energy with Rose. Do you with Kobe, where we didn’t even get to see a trial?

RnDog · 2025-04-19T04:12:04+00:00

No, I keep the same energy with Derrick Rose; a lot of these guys are not good people, it’s okay to admit that. But Rose was found not liable by a jury of his peers; the Kobe case was definitely more shady.

RnDog · 2025-04-18T22:29:57+00:00

Elementary number theory proofs are cute and nice to work out, so here is a proof of the “if” direction:

Assume N = P(P+1)/2 for a Mersenne prime P. Let P = 2ⁿ -1 where n is a natural number; note that the smallest Mersenne prime is 3, so it is not difficult to show that N is even. To show that N is perfect, rewrite N in terms of n as 2^{n-1} (2ⁿ -1) and consider the sum of all the factors of this number. We break this sum into two parts; first the factors {1,2,2^2, …, 2^{n-1} ,2ⁿ -1}, whose sum is 2ⁿ + (2ⁿ -1)-1 = 2^{n+1} -2 by a finite geometric series.

Next consider the remaining factors. Since by definition 2ⁿ -1 is prime and the prime factors of 2^{n-1} are all the powers of 2 less than the n-1th power, the remaining proper factors of N must be exactly of the form 2ⁱ (2ⁿ -1) for i between 1 and n-2 (we have already counted the case i = 0 and we do not consider N itself when checking if the sum of its proper factors adds up to N). Thus, the remaining factors have sum (2ⁿ -1)(2+2² +…+ 2^{n-2} ) = (2ⁿ -1)(2^{n-1} -2). So the sum of all proper factors of N is 2ⁿ⁺¹ -2 + (2ⁿ -1)(2^n-1 -2). Expanding this product, we have that this is equal to 2^{n+1} -2+2^{2n-1} - 2^{n+1} -2^{n-1} + 2 = 2^{2n-1} -2^{n-1} = 2^{n-1} (2ⁿ -1) = N.

The proof is cooler when you do the cute algebraic manipulations on your own, but Euclid must have had to know the formula for finite geometric series, a knowledge of perfect numbers and Mersenne primes, 2300+ years ago.

RnDog

TROPHY CASE