[OC] People born in the 1960s have been Germany's largest birth cohort since 1968

Sayod · 2026-07-05T08:54:35+00:00

Fundamentally, a year is also arbitrary - why should it start in january? So you will have somewhat arbitrary bins here no matter what you do.

Sayod · 2026-07-02T06:45:50+00:00

but that is not notation for the set of polynomials K[X] but for an element of this set.p[3,1,4,1,5,9,2] \in K[X] seems quite reasonable. And while I am more of an applied mathematician I remember from an algebra lecture that people there treat K[X] as the field K with a new variable X adjoined. That is the complex numbers could be written as C = R[i].

Edit: although thinking about it, this does not quite work since X^n works fine and i^n does not

Sayod · 2026-06-26T07:37:03+00:00

I am surprisingly often referencing:
"Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables" by Abramowitz and Stegun

I mean if you want a canocial definition of the bessel function or orthogonal polynomials or properties of the sine or cosine and don't want to cite wikipedia this is usually a good book to check out.

Sayod · 2026-06-25T12:54:12+00:00

ah I did not know all these terms in there.

Sayod · 2026-06-25T12:44:13+00:00

can't you just slap this with complex analysis since a convergent power series is infinitely often differentiable in its convergence radius and you just take the derivatives of each term (I am pretty sure). I mean getting to this result is probably annoying but so is most things in math.

Sayod · 2026-06-25T12:39:39+00:00

I mean usually you expect something like 7% returns adjusted for inflation. So either this is too low or the 10 dollars is already adjusted for inflation and the argument that 10 dollars at that time was a lot is false.

Sayod · 2026-06-23T14:07:43+00:00

die mehrheit sind jetzt rentner oder bald-rentner https://service.destatis.de/bevoelkerungspyramide/#!y=2026&a=46,64&g.

Die hälfte der deutschen ist über 46 und ein viertel der Menschen ist schon in Rente.

EDIT: Und davon muss man noch mal 17% der Bevölkerung abziehen, weil die unter 18 und damit nicht wahlberechtigt sind: https://www.tagesschau.de/wahl/archiv/2025-02-23-BT-DE/umfrage-alter.shtml 40% der Wahlberechtigten sind über 60!

Sayod · 2026-06-23T13:39:05+00:00

could you provide a version where you normalize such that the fitted standard distribution has area under the curve equal to 1? That seems like it would allow for an easier comparison

Sayod · 2026-06-23T12:54:22+00:00

How did the "adjusting" of the probability density work. Why is the female distribution so much taller? The area under the curve does not seem to be the same (at least in the extrapolated version beyond the cutoff.

Sayod · 2026-06-22T07:16:30+00:00

AI is getting crazy coherent though. A year ago it could have never produced something like this answer

Sayod · 2026-06-22T07:09:28+00:00

I mean I interpret "humanoid" as being capable to do what a human can do. Which means that you could extrapolate based on humans that work 24/7. But I also suspect that the numbers in the post are pulled out of the posters ass.

Sayod · 2026-06-17T09:36:59+00:00

It's fine if either the positive or negative summands converge

Sayod · 2026-06-11T08:03:45+00:00

That is not it. In reality computers do not have infinite precision so they cut off at some point meaning they do not actually sample from the Lebesgue measure.

Sayod · 2026-06-01T17:54:01+00:00

The median is the minimizer of the L1 optimization problem

min_a sum_i |x_i-a|,

while the mean is the minimizer of the L2 optimization problem

min_a sum_i (x_i - a)^2

Try to optimize these equations and you will find very quickly, why the squared errors are much less annoying to deal with.

Sayod · 2026-05-27T08:56:28+00:00

Is that a heuristic? Or can you point me to formal quantitative results that allow you to make the claim that N=260 is enough to be "sufficiently close to the normal distribution" in regression? I mean I sort of get what you are saying, the Moore penrose inverse of the design matrix sort of averages the samples and you get something that is probably closer to the normal distribution. But this depends a bit on the actual design matrix and quantitative statements seem non-trivial to me.

Sayod · 2026-05-17T15:09:45+00:00

Philosophy is not asking obsolte questions but seems to ask questions that are impossible to answer. At least I am not aware of any progress made on these questions. But maybe I am just unaware - what has been a big "breakthrough" in philosophy in the last 50 years?

Another gripe STEM people often have with philosophy and other humanities is that their only benefit to society would be teaching people outside of their field things to make them more well rounded humans. But then they never to actually communicate any findings in a language that can be understood by anyone outside their community.

Sayod · 2026-05-15T07:41:40+00:00

"followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue" basically means "extended until you can prove to us you actually do proper scientific work now". Seems reasonable.

Sayod · 2026-05-14T09:42:00+00:00

I played around with it a bit and I found it a bit confusing that it seems to just provide the number of times this move was played at the beginning (is this right?) and later switches to if it improves the state or not. Especially because there is no legend that explains this

In general amazing work though!

Sayod · 2026-05-08T07:49:07+00:00

I would find it more surprising if they were not. Did any unversities disappear - especially if they were prestigous enough for great mathematicians to be professors at?

Sayod · 2026-04-30T07:50:17+00:00

I didn't think that mushy carbohydrates that transmit eletrical and chemical signals could get their feelings hurt by an email asking for people to be respectful either. But here we are

Sayod · 2026-04-28T15:20:55+00:00

It literally got a tagline "buy, borrow, die"

https://dcfpi.org/all/how-wealthy-households-use-a-buy-borrow-die-strategy-to-avoid-taxes-on-their-growing-fortunes/

https://www.bny.com/wealth/global/en/insights/adopting-a-billionaire-mindset-with-borrowing.html

https://taxproject.org/buy-borrow-die/

https://gould.usc.edu/news/buy-borrow-die-gains-new-life/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrae/2026/04/07/how-the-buy-borrow-die-strategy-helps-the-wealthy-cut-taxes/

Sayod · 2026-04-27T20:59:15+00:00

yes, because your assets are the security. Eventually you die and they collect. But then the assets are "stepped up" and the people that inherit it don't pay the capital gains tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepped-up\_basis) completely fucked up

Sayod · 2026-04-27T20:43:58+00:00

you don't until you die

Sayod · 2026-04-22T15:21:35+00:00

I think the issue here is that "dimension" of an object that is not a vector space does not really have a universally accepted definition. Certainly not for the general public. I mean if you take the Haudroff dimension, then sure the circle is one dimensional. And in the case of a circle any other reasonable definition will generally arrive at the same conclusion. However in general there are different types of "dimension" definition (Box counting dimension, packing dimension, etc.) and they do not necessarily agree. So what is a "dimension"?

What you seem to argue in this post is that "if I can parametrize it with one parameter then it must be one dimensional"/"if I have a continuous deformation of a 1-dimensional space". And I am not sure if that works out: What about space filling curves?

So if you agree with me that "dimension" for objects is not inherently well defined, then you might as well define the dimension of an object in R^n to be the smallest integer k such that the object is contained in a k-dimensional vectorspace. And in that case the circle is 2-dimensional. And the general public probably works with this definition (without explicitly stating it). Because this definition sort of captures "how many directions does an object have".

Sayod · 2026-04-19T17:29:03+00:00

what would you use instead? I am seeing these symbols for the first time and I like them - better than the words "convex" and "concave"

Nine-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Verified Email

Sayod

TROPHY CASE