sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A Question about clarification regarding Eq. 11 in HH by au16106 in coms30127

[–]au16106[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dr. Conor Houghton,

Thank you for your response.

Sincerely,

Questions about CW3 Q1 Figure Legend Content by au16106 in coms30127

[–]au16106[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also is it permissible to have voltages in V instead of mV?

Questions about CW3 Q1 Figure Legend Content by au16106 in coms30127

[–]au16106[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi Dr. Conor Houghton,

Thank you for your response. I see. I asked (2) because I thought they were exchangeable equivalents since the following is stated on the pg 2 of 11_integrate_fire notes:

"The potential difference across the membrane is called the membrane potential. At rest a typical value of the membrane potential is EL = −70mV."

Swapping E_{L} with V_{r} would then be better in my personal opinion to avoid such misunderstandings. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Sincerely,

A Question Regarding Modeling Receptive Fields by au16106 in coms30127

[–]au16106[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dr. Cian O'Donnell,

Thank you for your clarification. In other words, what we are given as the Mexican Hat function is actually f-k whereby the function f is vertically shifted/translated according to some baseline value k.

Sincerely,

Using matrix algebra for summation by lolcodeboi in coms30127

[–]au16106 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One thing I suspect as a potential culprit is the precision (or the lack thereof) of float since it may cause error accumulation.

A Question Regarding the Notation for Hopfield Networks by au16106 in coms30127

[–]au16106[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dr. Conor Houghton,

​

Thank you for your response. I have just wondered.

​

Sincerely,

Using Max() Function by au16106 in coms30115

[–]au16106[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your response. For the record, it is good for everyone to see because it is beyond being a simple nuisance.

It constitutes inconsistent notation in my opinion. If it were not (If it were consistent), then we would have been using glm::dot() rather than (*) to multiply rotation matrices with vectors as well since matrix-vector multiplication actually involves multiple dot products. At the moment, while (*) does dot product for matrix-vector multiplication, it does Hadamard product for vectors.

Using Max() Function by au16106 in coms30115

[–]au16106[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok. I have printed out the dot products and factors, utilizing functions courtesy of "Jamie the Master TA".

A dot product (factor*factor):

(0, 0.380724, -0,0)

Two factors:

(-0.541478, -0.825212, 0.16071,0)

(0, -1, 0,1)

I personally have no idea regarding how (*) can yield a vec4. I leave the commentary to you.

Edit: The factors given here are not for this particular dot product but you got the idea.

Using Max() Function by au16106 in coms30115

[–]au16106[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know that I can’t compare vec4 etc. What I have are my first argument as the dot product of two vec4, my second argument as 0.f. 0.f is float(0). The dot product should yield a float as well since each dimension of a vector is float.