Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 12:56:05 UTC No. 16471902

>>16471899
This is dumb. Math is literally easier than computational implementation in many cases. If you don't believe me, take a look at Fourier analysis vs. numerical Fourier analysis. It is much much harder to efficiently implement a mathematical idea via code than it is to write it out as a sum/product/set operation etc.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 12:56:55 UTC No. 16471903

>>16471899
>gatekeeping
Yes, shame on those who came up with those mathematical concepts centuries before digital computers existed for not expressing their concepts in a programming language.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 13:03:00 UTC No. 16471906

If they want to see math written out in full words, look at any math written before Descartes. Mathematical notation is a recent invention to simplify complexity. Look at Euclid’s Elements, it’s A geometry book but it’s literally all words with no symbols whatsoever

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 13:08:09 UTC No. 16471910

>>16471906
these retards have never done any serious math so their input is rightfully ignored. Imagine something recent like the Geometric Langlands proof being written in pseudocode kek

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 13:46:56 UTC No. 16471932

>>16471899
unpopular opinion posted in a satirical bait thread supposed to evoke the opposite response, but yes I agree with xer and have been saying this for more than a decade. A lot of math is just bloated gatekeeping. It's not European tradition, it's stale ivory towerisms.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:07:56 UTC No. 16471946

>>16471932
I genuinely thought it was cool anon but I havent started calc just yet even though I'm familiar with basic programming.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:22:16 UTC No. 16471958

>>16471903
>someone came up with something once
>no we can't possibly change it, they didn't have the idea of computation then!

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:57:25 UTC No. 16471983

>>16471958
Things can change but starting the discussion with accusations of gatekeeping isn't the way to do it if you're actually interested in gathering support for your proposal and aren't just trying to agitate for victim points. Doubly so when those being accused of gatekeeping have been dead for centuries and made use of what was available to them at the time.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:04:58 UTC No. 16471996

>>16471899
now do an infinit sum

but yes that is how i looked at sums and products when i first encounterd them.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:12:16 UTC No. 16472001

>>16471996
so its bad advice then. xhe tricked us with her bad advice??

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:12:47 UTC No. 16472002

>>16471958
sigma notation is as simple as you can get.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:36:27 UTC No. 16472015

>>16471899
>Why isn't everything written in english? Why are chinese people learning chinese when you can learn english? Why are the chinese gatekeeping conversation when they could be speaking in english so I can understand them?
What's Franklin's problem?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:42:59 UTC No. 16472018

>>16472001
nta, I wouldn't say it's bad adv, since they really are one-to-one things. You can remove the n<=4 to get an infinite sum. But these two statements are used in different contexts. Like suppose you want the infinite sum of 1/2+1/4+1/8+... = 1. If you try the latter, the computer would run forever. It's like kissing your gf is normal, but kissing a random stranger on the street would be weird. Context is key, and both ways of writing this are valid

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:56:31 UTC No. 16472027

>>16471899
the fact that 1 twitter post was enough for even a giga retard like the psuedocode guy to understand is proof that it isn't scary or difficult to understand

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:01:00 UTC No. 16472034

>>16471958
Ordinary math syntax is way more concise and usefull than stupid code. Don't be an idiot.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:05:09 UTC No. 16472177

>>16471899
She's right.
Kinda like changing "cycles" to hertz in electric jargon.

Cycles explains exactly what is happening.to anyone and elucidates celarly what is happening.
Hertz is just retard jargon that makes a simple concept harder to visualize clearly.

Every field does this because every field is filled with faggots.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:32:07 UTC No. 16472209

>>16471899
Such a bad take. Almost by definition, programming is removed from regular language. To gatekeep math behind some tranny python bootcamp is retarded.
Take just these narrow examples with their rainbow code. The mathematical form is actually just 3(n)(n-1) and it is even simpler for any enumerated limit, take n = 4, the mathematical form is just 36.
Same for the other: 2^n • n! | n = 4, 16 • 24 = 384
No fuzzy socks required.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:07:02 UTC No. 16472244

>language is gatekeeping

No fucking shit!! The platonic world of ideas where thoughts are symbolized as the actual complete thought and unlimited by your personal memorized vocabulary is infinity more complex, deep, abstract and interconnected than anything that can be expressed with written or spoken language. In fact I'm convinced language itself that is a major limiting factor in humanities cognitive abilities. It's like every idea is a multifaceted 3 dimensional object (sometimes much more than 3d) and using words to describe an idea is like taking a photograph of a that 3d object. Sure it makes it easier to share so others can see what you're looking at, but a photo is a 2d representation of something that's 3d. Information and depth is lost in the exchange.

I feel as if if words are your only medium of internal thought it's very limiting and your inner world is very "flat" for lack of a better word. It's like every thought is shaped and contorted by the words we know, and if you try to have an idea that doesn't have a word, the idea slips from your mind as if you were trying to grasp water bare handed. Language is a detriment, but if we didn't have it there would be no way to share ideas with anyone.

>>16471899
They have the right idea, but not just in using code, but in using another method or medium to describe the same idea. It's like taking a photo of the same object from different angles. Get enough photos from enough different angles and you are now able to paint a complete picture of the object in your mind. All ideas can be viewed from multiple perspectives or "points of view" this way, and many ideas appear to line up or appear connect with each other when from different perspectives.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:12:19 UTC No. 16472248

>>16472209
>Almost by definition, programming is removed from regular language.
programming language design is an offshoot from trying to understand natural languages. noam chomsky was studying linguistics when coming up with things like context-free grammars.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:18:24 UTC No. 16472252

>>16471899
Gatekeeping is done for a reason. Look at how many fags have infested programming. Based mathematicians need to keep gate keeping.

sage at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:56:01 UTC No. 16472298

I once interacted with this tranny. Good person, but a tranny nonetheless. I can only fear sad for this weird confused creature

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 20:11:49 UTC No. 16472321

>>16472244
I am not sure if language could be considered a limiting factor. All relational formats are probably going to glued up to some language equivalence scheme.
Take visualization, bearing in mind that this is an undernourished study compared to something like language. The idiom is a picture is worth a thousand words. Without going into the impossible portion of defining meaning, where a thousand different viewers are bringing their own meaning to the table, a picture sets up relations in the iconography. The many interrelations in a 2D space may possibly be used to communicate something. This is a parallelized language, because everything is given up front.

We have no common tongue, or common eye so the correspondence of an image or meme is all very personal. One way of looking at this unexplored elements is how ancient languages are studied. In case of the controversial, they primarily make up a bunch of bullshit to draft a convincing narrative for what would be a phrase or two if a native speaker of the language were available. Art teacher tries to direct people to these things, but they end up trying to find the LCD message and everything is seen through a humanist lens of sex and sexual imagery. Same as architecture (obelisk = phallus) and psychology - your dreams just means you want your moms coochie. Only in music do they get into more nuanced understandings of tensions built within music itself.

There are a lot of paralleled thoughts in the above. Impressions are unrefined and a statement may not be so clear. It is kind of horrid in a way to consider how such a school could develop for teaching a parallel language. Suppose they show you a picture of a frog a thousand times in a bunch of scenarios until you identify with the frog. But also, perhaps the naive route is far worse, where some vile mogoloid class controls cinema and trains you with whatever they wish.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 22:57:08 UTC No. 16472514

>>16471958
How retarded do you have to be to not understand sigma notation

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 22:58:16 UTC No. 16472516

>>16471932
Filtered

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 23:16:24 UTC No. 16472534

>>16472177
>She's right.
>She

It should be obvious from the profile pic, but that's a tranny. Naturally, he picked the most flattering pic of himself he could find for the profile pic. Pic related. It's funny how you can tell almost immediately that it's a tranny. They always have the same physiognomy. It's like the shitlib version of an incel. It's always like a skinny low T incel type and they always have glasses, and most of them seem to go for like bangs or the hipster mullet. These are the types of trannies you see on college campuses. Take any STEM course, especially in math, stats, data science or CS and you'll see plenty of these.

The other common tranny prototype is like the balding middle aged sex offender type. They're usually a bit chunkier than the college STEMfag tranny. They tend to be fat, have obvious facial hair, and male pattern baldness. These ones tend to be into heavy make up and shit like high heels and fishnets. By contrast, the college STEMfag tranny is skinny and more youthful in the appearance and style preferences, often incorporating anime shit, face masks, antifa flags, and kawaii imagery.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 00:21:27 UTC No. 16472603

>>16471899
How is it gatekeeping but coding languages aren't?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 00:33:04 UTC No. 16472613

>>16471899
Why make math easier when you can always make it harder?
>General philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_Made_Difficult
>Products and Sums of Finite Sequences, p. 28
https://public.csusm.edu/aitken_html/Essays/Algebra/Binary_operations.pdf
>More abstraction please!
Bourbaki's Algebra I, Chapter 1, Section 2. Composition of an ordered sequence of elements.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 01:22:01 UTC No. 16472666

>>16472534
I'm 40.
The were no trannies when I was in college.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 01:41:56 UTC No. 16472704

>>16472613
I have a question about that wikipedia example. I am not sure if this is a book for me, but
>It is easily seen that the only numbers between 0 and 2, including 0 but excluding 2, are 0 and 1. Thus the remainder left by any number on division by 2 is either 0 or 1. Hence the quotient ring Z/2Z, where 2Z is the ideal in Z generated by 2, has only the elements [0] and [1], where these are the images of 0 and 1 under the canonical quotient map. Since [1] must be the unit of this ring, every element of this ring except [0] is a unit, and the ring is a field
How can we say that 0 and 1 are the only numbers? Don't we only know the numbers because we were brainwashed as children? How do we verify that 0 and 1 are the only such numbers beyond subjective personal experience?
I get that the book is supposed to be targeting things non-intuitively, it just seems I have an intuitive disconnect here. Its like did he just assume my numbers?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:10:37 UTC No. 16472836

>>16471902
its easier due to less rigor.

computation is much more rigorous than mathematics.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:20:36 UTC No. 16472856

>>16471899
>thing I am familiar with is easier than thing I'm not
Explain it in terms of footy

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:24:04 UTC No. 16472868

>>16472704
Pic related

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 04:20:30 UTC No. 16472942

>>16472704
They are the only numbers in [math]\mathbb{Z}_{2}[/math], this is a very special "subset" of [math]\mathbb{Z}[/math] (Strictly, there is an embedding instead of the subset relation) the definition of which you are not grasping. Moreover, [math]\mathbb{Z}\subset\mathbb{Q}\subset\mathbb{R}[/math], and there are infinite rational and real numbers between 0 and 1. So, in [math]\mathbb{Z}[/math] there are more numbers like 3 or -1, but there are only two elements in [math]\mathbb{Z}_{2}[/math], this is the source of your confusion.
>>16472868
Is that Landau?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 04:28:04 UTC No. 16472944

>>16472942
No, it's the same book he's quoting from through Wikipedia

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 04:31:44 UTC No. 16472950

>>16472015
>self taught programmer
>laid off because no degree
>now has to study maths to get a computer science degree

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 04:34:21 UTC No. 16472954

>>16472534
Xhe provides useful information about math though and xher channel specifically explains scary math for gamedev purposes.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 04:53:59 UTC No. 16472961

>>16472836
I wouldn't say that. It's not really due to "less rigor" and more that you don't need to tell a human being (or a mathematician) what you mean by "the set of all x such that f(x)=y" can instead just write it as the pre-image of y. A computer, however, you do need to make "real" a lot of trivial details that aren't all that relevant to the actual mathematics you are working towards solving.

These kinds of "mechanistic set operations" which only really serve a relational purpose in mathematics become not at all trivial when you actually need to solve the "yeah but how do I find that set efficiently and in a numerically stable fashion" problem to computerize the mathematics.