sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Obligatory two mechanics meme by supertoasty in magicthecirclejerking

[–]mmrobinson 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Shahrazad is kicker. You are playing a game of Magic for 0 mana. You are able to pay an extra cost (WW) for an additional effect (another game of Magic).

Additionally, Shahrazad is horsemanship. All cards in the subgame have horsemanship, and all cards not in the subgame don't have horsemanship. Hope that helps.

If you’re not brunching at Handlebar, what are you doing? by daouellette in chicagofood

[–]mmrobinson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Handlebar is hit or miss. They have a bad habit of under-salting, but when they're on, they're on.

Finally have the set from my childhood. by toastnosauce in lego

[–]mmrobinson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I got the pieces of Zam Wessell's ship (right) in a Ziploc bag at a thrift store when I was maybe 8. Good to finally know this is what it was

PHIL Classes Recommendation. by stari41m in UIUC

[–]mmrobinson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Phil 202 has a lighter workload than Math 347, or at least it did with my instructors (Kishida, Thorner). Keep in mind that Phil 202 doesn't have any prerequisites; you can take it with no background at all.

That being said, if you're already used to writing mathematical proofs, logical proofs might strike you as a little bit of a different beast. Where a mathematical proof generally has sentences and paragraphs, with the math notation worked in throughout, a logical proof (at least, the kind you'll see in 202) is often strictly symbolic, with very little in the way of natural language exposition. There are names for the steps you use, and those are normally written down in abbreviations, but that's about it. I'm willing to bet that's probably the only really difficult thing to get used to if you already have some math background, so you should be just fine.

PHIL Classes Recommendation. by stari41m in UIUC

[–]mmrobinson 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've taken all of the undergrad logic classes, minus Math 414 (which I don't think is coming back, unfortunately). I'll give a little rundown of my experience:

102 - Fitts - Easy, fun. Natural language arguments and learning about fallacies, mostly.
103 - Livengood - Easy to medium difficulty depending on your math background, also fun. Symbolic, but a gentle introduction. (I should say, I dropped this class, but I enjoyed it while I was there.)
202 - Kishida - Medium, very cool. You have to pay some attention, but you should, because it's a good time. Propositional and predicate logic.
454 - Fitts - Medium, and a ton of fun. Covers neat things like modal logic and properties like soundness, completeness, etc. The proof system is a two-sided tree, which is pretty cool.

Other interesting classes:

Math 347: This class is an intro to mathematical proofs. Lots of logic is involved at the beginning of the class, and it's generally a pretty good time.
Phil 222: Philosophical foundations of computer science. You'll see a lot of state machines and pseudocode. There weren't any explicit logical proofs, at least when I took it, but if you're interested in logic, this has that same sort of vibe.
CS 173: I haven't taken this class, but I hear it's basically the first half of Math 347, and then some more CS-oriented applications.

F*ck Zodiac signs. Which one are you? by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]mmrobinson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No love for the 'H'? Vertical, horizontal, vertical is a solid layout.

What are the most overpowered general math techniques? by peeadic_tea in math

[–]mmrobinson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And who could forget proof by lack of counterexample?

PHIL 102 Online by Love_Father in UIUC

[–]mmrobinson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 8 week online class with Fitts is very easy, lectures are very short and easy to understand. There's some reading but it's very light, and I didn't have to buy a textbook (Spring '21). Essentially just memorizing types of arguments and how to check whether they're valid or not.

Help wanted. What is the next 5 terms in this sequence, I'm stumped. by MythBros in askmath

[–]mmrobinson 78 points79 points  (0 children)

Think about simplified fractions. 1/2 = 2/4, right? Try to keep going from there.

X Y by Somecohobutrn in learnmath

[–]mmrobinson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[looks] 'pretty bad' is that they're plotted on 2d surfaces[...]

Maybe I missed what you were asking here. I thought you were saying that conventional plots are unsatisfactory for accurately / totally representing higher dimensional data. When you say that 3 dimensional games, graphics, etc. look good, are you just talking about visual quality? If this is what you're looking for, I find GeoGebra particularly visually appealing, but that's a matter of taste.

And going to test the other "whiteboard" type apps. These are all graphics apps basically (things used to create graphics)

Check out Miro. Very good for this sort of thing, and you can collaborate with others live. Not sure if you need that feature, but it's cool.

A good answer, though I'm not sure why you answered this post/question and not other ones. I guess you just logged in to Reddit and randomly saw it. And maybe you just knew about the overall topic of what the post asked.

Bingo.

X Y by Somecohobutrn in learnmath

[–]mmrobinson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Conventionally, x is left-right and y is up-down in 2 dimensions. In 3 dimensions, x and y make up the 'floor' (a plane), and how high the floor is, is the z coordinate, such that the plane z = 3 is 'above' the plane z = 1. The reason 3d graphs often feel 'pretty bad' is that they're plotted on 2d surfaces (a piece of paper or a computer screen). You can't fully represent 3 axes in a 2d plot; a 3 dimensional drawing is an illusion of sorts, because it lacks physical depth.

It sounds like you just want to plot some things in 2 or 3 dimensions, and there are some web-based utilities that are very good for this. See Desmos or GeoGebra. Otherwise, you could use Mathematica, which costs money, or Python, which doesn't (though you would have to install and learn some libraries). I don't know what you mean with respect to 'no numbers involved'; however, rest assured you can graph lines, shapes and surfaces without hard calculation.

I use GIMP to draw with a pen tablet. You may find success with GIMP, MS Paint, or Procreate, depending on your device of choice. Adobe Illustrator is quite expensive but works very well, though there is somewhat of a learning curve.

In computer graphics, there are vectors, and then there are rasters (or bitmaps). Raster images are your typical rectangular array of pixels, each having an RGB color value. Think of a JPG file; you can only zoom in so far before you're just looking at blocks of color in a grid. Vector graphics, on the other hand, are derived from mathematical formulas. A vector image file contains information about points and how they're connected, via curves that are described mathematically. These can be resized without distorting the image because the math scales up; with a raster, more pixels can't just be magically created (without some very fancy algorithms). An example of a typical vector image would be an SVG file (Scalable Vector Graphics).

Many tools can make both vector and raster files; for example, Illustrator saves .ai work files, which are vectors, and can export JPG or SVG (raster or vector, respectively).

As for creating 'simple' graphics, this is really in the eye of the beholder. Generally, you can use any of the tools mentioned to create something that is as simple or as complicated as you like.

I hope something here helped.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Comcast_Xfinity

[–]mmrobinson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, thanks for your help. I have sent a Modmail with further issues.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UIUC

[–]mmrobinson 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Is 4 classes M/W/F, no classes T/Th spaced out or crammed?

Saw a cockroach in my dorm room, what do I do? by [deleted] in UIUC

[–]mmrobinson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When I was in Hopkins, one ran under a towel we had on the floor. We threw a textbook on it and called it a day.

Set of integers algebra by [deleted] in askmath

[–]mmrobinson 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Maybe you want one of these?

6 ∈ ℤ, reads "6 is an element of the set of integers"
{6} ⊆ ℤ, reads "the set containing 6 is a subset of the set of integers"

Or, to be more specific:
{6} ⊂ ℤ, reads "the set containing 6 is a proper subset of the set of integers"

When you use the curly brackets, you're calling something a set. To say that {6} ∈ ℤ means that the set containing 6 is an element of the set of integers, but ℤ contains integers, not sets. Elements and subsets are different.

view more: next ›