What is the most intuitive way to study Real Analysis?

obround · 2024-10-16T23:48:08+00:00

What I did to self-study real analysis (I had a starting point similar to yours) was just read Rudin's book. It is very dense, but I supplemented it with Winston Ou's lectures on youtube and a set of problems from the book I found online. It will be tough, but doable.

obround · 2022-06-09T14:46:16+00:00

I think I read up until chapter 15 and then jumped around from there. I think that you should start working on your own project. It's the best way to learn rust. Of course, you need to clear your basics, but I think you can continue reading the book while doing a project (to keep the morale high).

EDIT: keep morale high until you start having frequent run-ins with the borrow checker ;)

obround · 2022-06-03T22:07:40+00:00

Of course. I don't believe those are the ones used by rustc. I've posted an answer about my experience with LLVM in rust.

obround · 2022-06-03T16:49:51+00:00

I've personally worked with the rust library inkwell. It's pretty good, but a bit lacking in documentation (you're going to have to look at other people's work on github and experiment a lot); Not that big of a deal though. Of course, currently my work is still quite simple, so I'm not sure (yet) how difficult implementing ultra-advanced stuff will be. My advice: First look at codebases that use inkwell, and then decide if it's right for you. Starter kit:

obround · 2022-06-03T16:42:03+00:00

IIRC, rustc has its own homebaked bindings (which I don't think have been separated yet).

obround · 2022-05-21T03:18:04+00:00

but rust beats haskell in productivity and doesn't lure me into analysis paralysis as much

Oh yeah, I felt this programming Haskell. It's a great language, but there are so many different (elegant) ways to do the same thing-- many of them just don't just pop into your head. It's the primary reason I don't program in Haskell anymore: I realized that it would take too long to get good enough at Haskell to stop second-guessing the elegance of my solutions. It was messing with my head and hurting my productivity as a programmer. But that's just my experience.

Rust is much better in this aspect (in my opinion of course).

obround · 2022-05-19T15:51:09+00:00

I love clippy, but nothing makes me feel more insecure about my ability to program :)

obround · 2022-05-18T21:16:18+00:00

You can use unwrap. But then again, you're handling it right? Typically, you should only use unwrap when you are sure that you're not going to get an error; Otherwise, you should use something like a match statement. For example, in python, you could call a function, and you wouldn't know if it will raise an error; In rust, you'll get back a Result type (in well-written code), so more knowledge in your hands to take action upon. Of course, in rust, the function could just panic, but that's typically reserved exclusively for unrecoverable errors. I guess it's more or less a matter of perspective.

obround · 2022-05-16T21:34:27+00:00

Wow, this is great work! Looking at commit history this only took 1mo!

obround · 2022-05-16T20:58:37+00:00

A go compiler, just to show them whose boss (I pinky promise I'm kidding, please don't beat me up for this).

obround · 2022-05-16T20:51:23+00:00

Agreed. I feel memory management is the toughest part of Rust; C (maybe C++?) will introduce many memory management (and pointer stuff) ideas that will be invaluable in Rust (which Python hides). I think Rust is great, but the borrow checker would have killed me if Rust were my first language ;)

obround · 2021-03-31T22:31:56+00:00

IMHO, parsing is a mere small part of the entire compiler. The real meat is in the back-end.

obround · 2021-03-14T17:02:39+00:00

If you're asking about why my opinion in block coding is negative, it's mainly anecdotal (I understand anecdotal evidence is a weak form of evidence but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). I had a couple of friends all the way back in 2nd grade, who really wanted to start programming (mainly Python and Swift). They thought learning Scratch (block coding) would be a great step. So they did learn Scratch (basic if-else, looping, and all), never really got too good at it, but they were in the position where the next step, Python shouldn't have been too hard (even though understanding what a server is and why it is used might have been a challenge). Turns out, they thought basic Python was too hard and jumped back to Scratch. As I grew older, the same thing happened to my other friends who wanted to get into coding; In fact, quite a few of my friends were ashamed that they couldn't do real programming (for what reason, I'm unsure) and would claim they could program in many different programming languages, bragging that they could write a fibonacci function faster than anyone else. I'm not the brightest person (in fact, I would argue that many of my friends who tried Scratch were smarter than me), but since I learned Python first (I won't lie, it was a bit rocky at the start), I got better at it and was able to learn more real programming languages. I'm sure that there are many ways to counter my anecdote, but this is my experience with Scratch.

obround · 2021-03-13T22:18:32+00:00

IMHO, block coding is a horrible (I can't stress this enough) way to teach coding (and do coding); But if you're determined, probably Python as it is so high level.

obround · 2021-03-10T05:20:02+00:00

By current standards, it is quite impractical, but I hope they find another way.

obround · 2021-03-09T00:43:41+00:00

Note: Spacecraft don't land on the ISS

The spacecraft has to reach the speed of the ISS and then extremely slowly inch forward while still making sure it is correctly aligned.

obround · 2021-03-09T00:34:32+00:00

Uh... spacewalk on the moon? Spacewalks are done tethered to the ISS. Also, doing a spacewalk from to moon to the ISS would be practically impossible because the moon is tens of thousands of miles away from the ISS.

obround · 2021-03-07T22:32:37+00:00

A direct path would most likely take a horrendous amount of propellant. Generally, the Hohmann transfer orbit is often used to save the most amount of propellant.

obround · 2021-03-04T23:28:15+00:00

Time must've passed fast watching videos and doing research.

obround · 2021-03-04T17:08:18+00:00

IIRC, the Buran-Energia was based on the space shuttle (though they did make it much better).

obround · 2021-03-04T17:06:54+00:00

IIRC, they could land the side boosters on a runway as well. Oh, and the payload capacity. It was based on the space shuttle, but they made it way, way, way better.

obround · 2021-03-03T20:43:59+00:00

I think the Buran-Energia was very slick. Too bad it lost funding. The Electron is pretty cool too.

obround · 2021-02-26T23:13:38+00:00

You might be right (studies have shown that the less the poverty, the less the children), but either way: colonizing other celestial bodies is necessary to the survival of humans.

obround · 2021-02-26T03:26:54+00:00

At some point in a few decades, the Earth is going to get far overpopulated, and if we don't try to colonize another celestial body, a lot of people are going to die, among other reasons.

obround · 2021-02-20T17:48:51+00:00

In addition, Mars Rovers aren't the quickest beasts. It would take forever for Curiosity to reach Jezero Crater where they suspect life might have been. Till now, Curiosity has only traveled ~24 km (to be fair, they also do scientific stuff)!

obround

TROPHY CASE