Oh field addition? That's just the abelian operation between the group of non-1 elements. Oh a group? That's just a monoid with inverses. Oh a monoid? That's just a semigroup with identity. Oh a semigroup? That's just a set with an associative binary operation. Oh a binary operation? That's
I think I would've been OK if the girth matches the length but......why is it just lonk
Engineers left it on my PRs before waiting several months to merge them :)
Can you always inscribe a square in a closed, continuous curve?: A Topological Perspective
The math background needed to enjoy the video is not very extensive. Grant Sanderson (3blue1brown) explains everything to the best of his ability from a perspective of "discovering mathematics" and helping you "convince yourself" that you could have come to the same conclusion as well (i.e. grasping as much of the proof as you can). And if that goes over your head, then the animations are still really pretty!
My description: > An intreguing video that takes an innocuous problem of finding an inscribed square in a closed, continuous curve and connects it to familiar topologic objects, like the torus (or the coffee mug!), the Möbius strip, and the Klein bottle.
Timestamps:
0:00 - Inscribed squares
1:00 - Preface to the second edition
3:04 - The main surface
10:47 - The secret surface
16:45 - Klein bottles
22:38 - Why are squares harder?
25:10 - What is topology?
Thank you! Conlangs by drag must be sick
True! This way just works for me, and I don't try to take it in all at once
One way I've been trying personally is just gathering as much information as possible and remembering it. I've always been super bad at history and biology because of my resistance to memorization, but I'm slowly keeping up while trying not the get burnt out.
Of course, after I have enough info, that'll inform me of what the next move is, I hope, because if I do anymore now I'll just crumble
I think partitioning was one of the first skills I learned and the one I took most for granted. I had started on Arch cause I wanted to be cool and I liked arduous things, but I just ended up reading on LUKS, TPM, LVM, mdadm, etc. and different ways to set up your partitions. I never really took time to appreciate past me for learning it lol
Can we get QA testing for when in an inertial frame of reference at 95℅ the speed of light
rule and blaze
I swear @[email protected] is everywhere bc he's here and I saw him in [email protected] and like two other communities 😭😭
Also just side ramble: lowkey this was kinda funny in a post-post-ironic way: first, it was meh funny because the guy rapping in such a shy voice was a bit funny and he's cute ig but NEXT; Second, the comment about the therapist genuinely made me cackle; third, and probably a bit more unfounded (?) is that the fact that multiple people can find this funny (the shared experience of laughing together?) ties off the humor with a bow and feeling of content fulfillment.
Slight context: bro was rapping the part of "DENIAL IS A RIVER" by doechii starting with "I mean fuck, I like pills" etc.
I just type random words sorry
Do you speak any super synthetic/agglutinative languages? I was just curious about how comfortable you are with "altering" (no such thing as a standard tho) language, like in Spanish where I believe some have adopted an "e" ending for neutral gender, such as latine (or the semantic English equivalent Latinx)
Me with NixOS lmfao
"Oh I can't wait to get rid of the pain of reconfiguring everything constantly when I reinstall"
"Wait....... where's the rest of the stuff to reinstall? Guys?"
You sent me down one hell of a rabbit hole 😭 At first I was confused by the tone marker, but it turns out Swedish is a pitch accent language. So that clears things up xd
But before I even got to that, the section on vowels caught my eye. Apparently, /oː/ can be realized as [ɤʷː], [oə] (Central Standard), or [ɔə] (Gotland?). So apparently [blɤ̂ʷːhaj], [bloəhaj], and [blɔəhaj] are all valid realizations of /blôːhaj/ (varying in dialect)? Thankfully BLÅHAJ has no rhotics or i wouldve started getting into the literature
This was a little refreshing to read. I think I can now proceed on with less cautious pessimism :) /s
Though seriously, thanks for getting the information out there, it doesn't hurt to curry a little bit of solace
convincing rule
The context behind this scene is hilarious, but it's like 151 chapters into the manhwa so I can't even explain why it's so funny
How different are RISC-V laptops?
Hello all,
I've only done very basic research on RISC-V as the DeepCompute RISC-V mobo caught my attention. For the software side, I know that support will (probably) come with time, so I can't really do much besides lament over it huh?
The main thing that caught my eye is that the DeepCompute mobo seems to only accept SD cards for storage. Is this a hard limit of RISC-V or is it just a limit of current technology (i.e. we need time to build something over RISC-V like x86_64/amd64?)?
I've also heard that Linux ran vaguely slow on RISC-V architectures, but ive only heard it as a passing comment. How true is this? Would future developments/putting in more time like for the decades behind x86_64 developments alleviate the speed issue?
Thank you all!
rule + question
Do you guys post something everytime you visit a post FROM [email protected] or just everytime you decide to scroll through the community?
Also I stole this image from someone and idk who it was or the original source so 👺
Had to read up on this community...
And fuck I got trapped! Enjoy a picture of chad Kim Dokja from ORV drawn by the artist of Nano Machine :)
Can we see an object twice at the exact same time at far distances?
If we look into a far off distance at an object travelling towards Earth, shouldn't we be able to see both the light from the object at some time t plus the light at some later time (t + delta t)?
Let's also assume that the object is traveling fast enough that it is discernable. This point might be moot, since I'm not sure if such a situation is possible. I know that Rayleigh's criterion could give us a lower bound for how far the images of the object has to be, though I'm not sure how complicated it would be to throw redshift into the mix.
This seems like one of those "Whoa this feels see weird causally but it's just a natural consequence of things we've observed thus has little repercussions as to what limitations physicists actually work around." Actually, I could see perhaps long exposure photos (or the telescope equivalent, if it exists) could run into issues.