meta user
network profile
| bio | website | whereofonecannotspeak.wordpre… |
|---|---|---|
| location | Brighton, United Kingdom | |
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 7 months |
| seen | 11 hours ago | |
| stats | profile views | 73 |
|
22h |
comment |
Is this $\mathbb{Z}_2^n$? @AWalker ... or what you did. |
|
22h |
comment |
Is this $\mathbb{Z}_2^n$? @AWalker, ah, I see, I will add quotes ;) |
|
22h |
comment |
Is this $\mathbb{Z}_2^n$? Cool :) That's what I was thinking. |
|
22h |
comment |
Is this $\mathbb{Z}_2^n$? @AWalker, I thought it would be, yes. |
|
May 11 |
comment |
Seems that I just proved $2=4$. @Magtheridon96 The power tower is the infinite tetration. |
|
May 7 |
comment |
What was the first bit of mathematics that made you realize that math is beautiful? (For children's book) @AlexanderGruber Weird: "multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement" |
|
Mar 15 |
comment |
What was the first bit of mathematics that made you realize that math is beautiful? (For children's book) You can watch it again online: youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM |
|
Mar 15 |
comment |
What was the first bit of mathematics that made you realize that math is beautiful? (For children's book) Ooohhhhh yes indeed! I can still remember the theme music now, and picture the pentagrams arms expanding into golden rectangles. |
|
Jan 29 |
comment |
Funny thing. Multiplying both the sides by 0? clear and concise. |
|
Jan 27 |
comment |
Prove this product @MichaelHardy Essentially, because things mistakes like $x^-1$, $g_ij$ require recompilation - which is annoying - if you put in plenty of brackets you get more intuitive behaviour. Much in someone who uses supercollider might be tempted to put brackets in ((a*b)+(c*d)) no matter what language they are using, as they are intuitively aware that syntactic sugar does not apply everywhere. Or it is a result of changing something from x^{-2} to x^{2} - deleting and re-adding curly brackets is very annoying. |
|
Dec 29 |
comment |
Find the infinite sum $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{2^n-1}$ +1 for a good non answer |
|
Dec 27 |
comment |
Rigorous Definition of “Function of” @MichaelHardy I am aware that this particular way of speaking is a constant source of confusion, I can think of whole bodies of literature that are founded such misunderstandings. |
|
Dec 27 |
comment |
Rigorous Definition of “Function of” @MichaelHardy If there was a special, well known, term for protestant women (think "bijection"), it would make sense to say "neither", "woman", "Protestant", or "both". Let's put it this way, when I use the word "Catholic" I generally don't mean the pope, (1) because most Catholics are not the pope, but more importantly for the point here (2) because if I meant the pope, I would say "the pope". It does not make no sense absolutely, especially to anyone who has been taught surjective, injective and bijective as the basic way of classifying functions. Assume: If it is a bijection I would say so. |
|
Dec 25 |
comment |
Rigorous Definition of “Function of” @MichaelHardy It is very common in every day speech (not formal languages) to assume a shared disjunctive judgment - i.e. that "tea or coffee" refers to either tea or coffee, not both. Similarly, although the classes of "surjective" and "injective" are not formally disjoint, an informal assumption about disjoint categories when we use natural language allows us to informally use terms like "neither", "surjective","injective" and "both" as referring to disjoint categories. This disjunction is not explicit, and thus assumed and informal, but it is something we (must) do all the time to talk. |
|
Dec 25 |
comment |
Rigorous Definition of “Function of” @MichaelHardy by surjective I meant, non-injective and surjective (i.e. a surjection but not a bijection). I admit this is probably not the formally correct way of speaking. In other words, I meant it in the "would you like tea or coffee? Tea!" sense. Rather than the "would you like tea or coffee? Yes!" sense. |
|
Dec 25 |
comment |
Rigorous Definition of “Function of” Michael's definition is definitely what it means in this context. But, a statistic in general, does not require the constraint given by @ruakh . This a restricted type of statistic (and function), in fact it is usually the case that statistics are given by surjective functions. |
|
Dec 19 |
comment |
Solutions to $\int_{x_0}^{x_1} f(x,y)^{-n} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y} f(x,y)\right)^m dx = 0$ I would consider it a trivial solution, but that does not mean that your response is not appreciated :) |
|
Dec 18 |
comment |
Name this polytope Also, I want the name of a whole class. |
|
Dec 18 |
comment |
Name this polytope That isn't what I'm asking, sorry :( Possibly it is the dual (in some sense) of the 24-cell. |
|
Dec 17 |
comment |
Conjugate prior for noisy Bernoulli Do you need to infer $\beta$ too? |
