• 1 Post
  • 129 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle


  • i think this is a fairly reasonable gut reaction to first hearing about the “unnatural” numbers, especially considering the ways they’re (typically) presented at first. it seems like kids tend to be introduced to the negative numbers by people saying things like “hey we can talk about numbers that are less 0, heres how you do arithmetic on them, be sure to remember all these rules”. and when presented like that, it just seems like a bunch of new arbitrary rules that need to be memorized, for seemingly no reason.

    i think there would be a lot less resistance if it was explained in a more narrative way that explained why the new numbers are useful and worth learning about. e.g.,

    • negative numbers were invented to make it possible to subtract any two whole numbers (so that it’s possible to consistently undo addition).
    • rational numbers were invented to make it possible to divide any two whole numbers (so that it’s possible to consistently undo multiplication, with 0 being a weird edge-case).
    • real numbers were invented to facilitate handling geometrical problems (hypotenuse of a triangle, and π for dealing with circles), and to facilitate the study of calculus (i.e. so that you can take supremums, limits, etc)
    • complex numbers were invented to make it possible to consistently solve polynomial equations (fundamental theorem of algebra), and to better handle rotations in 2d space (stuff like Euler’s formula)

    i think the approach above makes the addition of these new types of numbers seem a lot more reasonable, because it justifies the creation of all the various types of numbers by basically saying “there weren’t enough numbers in the last number system we were using, and that made it a lot harder to do certain things”


  • affiliate@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlIt all makes sense now
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    it’s mathematically provable that the shortest path between any two points on a sphere will be given by a so-called “great circle”. (a great circle is basically something like the equator: one of the biggest (greatest) circles that you can draw on the surface of a sphere.) i think this is pretty unintuitive, especially because this sort of non-euclidean geometry doesn’t really come up very frequently in day to day life. but one way to think about this that on the sphere, “great circles” are the analogues of straight lines, although you’d need a bit more mathematical machinery to make that more precise.

    although in practice, some airlines might choose flight paths that aren’t great circles because of various real world factors, like wind patterns and temperature changes, etc.



  • affiliate@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlsIGmA BeHaiovouR
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    they’re probably assuming it will be like every skyrim update released in the past 10 years, which is a fair assumption.

    and this update has also caused the widely anticipated fallout london project being indefinitely postponed. in the article linked, you can see the fallout london project lead saying:

    “But with the new update dropping just 48 hours [after Fallout London’s original release date], the past four years of our work stand to just simply break.”

    i don’t really see what good it does to say “nobody can know that at this time”, when people have every reason to think that it will break their mods. i mean sure, nobody knows the future, but you can say that about literally every single prediction made about anything in the future. it’s a tautology. are you trying to imply people shouldn’t make predictions about anything?







  • i’m not really sure what IQ has to do with this. it was originally designed to measure people’s proficiency in school. it was not designed to be a general measure of intelligence. that was something that was co opted by eugenicists.

    here’s a quote from Simon Bidet, the original creator of the IQ test, about his thoughts on the eugenicists using his test:

    Finally, when Binet did become aware of the “foreign ideas being grafted on his instrument” he condemned those who with ‘brutal pessimism’ and ‘deplorable verdicts’ were promoting the concept of intelligence as a single, unitary construct.

    you can read more about this stuff on his wikipedia page. (the quote is from wikipedia)

    even to this day, there is quite a bit of doubt as to how accurately IQ measures “general intelligence”





  • if you’re trying to be malicious, wouldn’t it be better to multiply by Rand() instead of divide by Rand()?

    assuming there are a decent number of recorded sales, you’d end up seeing many of the calls to Rand() returning values very close to 0. so, if you’re dividing by those values, you’d end see lots of sales records reporting values in the thousands, millions, or even billions of dollars. i feel like that screams “software bug” more than anything. on the other hand, seeing lots of values multiplied by values close to 0 would certainly look weird, but it wouldn’t be as immediately suspicious.

    (of course a better thing would just be to use Rand() on a range other than [0,1])