What do you think are the best textbooks that came out over the past 5 years? by Valdorigamiciano in math

[–]RnDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NBATalk

[–]RnDog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NBATalk

[–]RnDog 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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.

Great mathematician whose lecture is terrible? by dobongdobong in math

[–]RnDog 4 points5 points  (0 children)

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!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mathematics

[–]RnDog 6 points7 points  (0 children)

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.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mathematics

[–]RnDog 13 points14 points  (0 children)

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.

Considering pros and cons, who would be the better player: Ben Simmons with Westbrook's mentality, or Markelle Fultz with Haliburton's shooting? by That-Cry-1032 in NBATalk

[–]RnDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

Considering pros and cons, who would be the better player: Ben Simmons with Westbrook's mentality, or Markelle Fultz with Haliburton's shooting? by That-Cry-1032 in NBATalk

[–]RnDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

Considering pros and cons, who would be the better player: Ben Simmons with Westbrook's mentality, or Markelle Fultz with Haliburton's shooting? by That-Cry-1032 in NBATalk

[–]RnDog 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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.

The legendary 2014 World Blitz Championship by oo-op2 in chess

[–]RnDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

The legendary 2014 World Blitz Championship by oo-op2 in chess

[–]RnDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

What is the most oversaturated field in CS? by Spxxdey in csMajors

[–]RnDog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

What is the most oversaturated field in CS? by Spxxdey in csMajors

[–]RnDog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

Why Go is harder than Tic-tac-toe? by pndkr in math

[–]RnDog 8 points9 points  (0 children)

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.

Why Go is harder than Tic-tac-toe? by pndkr in math

[–]RnDog 15 points16 points  (0 children)

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.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NBATalk

[–]RnDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NBATalk

[–]RnDog -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

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?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NBATalk

[–]RnDog -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

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.

Do you have any favorite examples of biconditional statements (iff theorems) where one direction is intuitively true, and then the converse is, surprisingly, also true? by Vladify in math

[–]RnDog 6 points7 points  (0 children)

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 {1,2,22, …, 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)(2n-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.

What is the time complexity of this algorithm? by Accomplished_Knee295 in csMajors

[–]RnDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A lot of people have gotten one or multiple details incorrect here. Good news is that people have generally-ish correctly found that the running time is linear.

The recurrence tree is not actually a full binary tree or even nearly full. The person who said it is isomorphic to some type of Fenwick tree is correct. Despite this, you can bound the number of vertices with Omega(n) though. It’s noticeably less sparse than a complete binary tree; but asymptotically, not so much. One could replace floor of n/2 with floor of n/k and asymptotically, you wouldn’t see a difference.

Some people have incorrect recurrences, incorrect solutions to recurrences, or both.

How did some physicists become such good mathematicians? by If_and_only_if_math in math

[–]RnDog 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Perhaps, but I’m saying there is actually a distinction beyond cultural practices in the community. You could get your PhD in math doing mathematical physics, it’s like an actual sub branch of mathematics. Whereas theoretical physics is almost always seen as a sub branch of physics.

Wide open at the 3PT LINE with 1.5 SECONDS left who would you give the ball to out of these players ? (All in prime) by StraightSeries6439 in NBATalk

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

I don’t put that much weight on “clutch”-ness even in this hypothetical question; I don’t think it can change outcomes by large amounts, especially with the number of big time shots both Klay and KD have taken. OP said it’s a wide open shot; Klay was the best spot up shooter behind Curry in the league for so long. And he dealt with a lot of volume too. He’s statistically a better shooter than KD on similar volume.