Laughing harder in Typst

You’re right. But in this case, which is the case I was referring to, there is no two sided limit. It is discontinuous. It is in this case which I was referring to. Sorry for not being clear.

I have a BA in Mathematics. The limit is indeed determined by the direction you approach the limiting value.

When given without specification, the limit is implied to come from the left, meaning it increases towards the limiting value, which is why you see +inf.

In my experience, as a soon to be mathematics graduate, you really have to research what texts are worth investing in.

As someone who can’t focus on pdfs, I buy physical copies of texts. It’s a pain to work out what books are worth getting.

Springer has some banger publications. But it also has so pretty shit ones. In my experience, most publishers are like that. I’ll never feel bad for pirating a book first to see if it’s worth getting.

Fucking paying a week’s wage or more for slop - AI or otherwise.

A test of your reflexes!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal’s_tree_theorem#TREE_function

I disagree in part with this logic.

Gödel’s incompleteness theorem says that a system typically cannot prove all truths that come from axioms of the system, like you said.

Where I disagree is how this is applied to theoretical physics. Depending on where you draw the line of “everything”, the limits of proof comes down to two things: observation and the language we use to describe it.

As it stands, for example, gravity is difficult to fit into the standard model. It may be impossible to do so within that system. However, it may work well in an alternate description of the universe. In this case, the core mathematics is the same, but the theories differ. It may be likely that our understanding of the universe is filled with logical holes and fallacy, but that does not mean that the incompleteness theorem says anything regarding the ability to unify physics.

Mathematically, physics is nothing more than descriptions of observation and expectations. It could very well be that our perception of the universe is fundamentally flawed and, in essence, we can only perceive certain truths that appear correct in our perspective. As such, it isn’t necessarily impossible to formulate a correct theory; it’s just that we are unable to succinctly describe reality.

More simply, math is just the thing we use to describe the universe. So, it’s likely we can keep “adding new math” as we discover new physics. The hard part is understanding the physical nature of the universe, first.

Or perhaps the universe truly cannot be described all at one, such that everything is related. As a mathematician, I like to believe that we simply lack the ability to perceive the full reality of, well, “reality”. And as such, we are missing important information that would tie all the loose ends together.

I use https://komga.org/

One of my knobs broke and to this day, I can’t work out how to replace it. Where do you even buy them from??? 🙃

Only for separable equations

The thing that annoys me most is that there have been studies done on LLMs where, when trained on subsets of output, it produces increasingly noisier output.

Sources (unordered):

• What is model collapse?
• AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data
• Large Language Models Suffer From Their Own Output: An Analysis of the Self-Consuming Training Loop
• Collapse of Self-trained Language Models

Whatever nonsense Muskrat is spewing, it is factually incorrect. He won’t be able to successfully retrain any model on generated content. At least, not an LLM if he wants a successful product. If anything, he will be producing a model that is heavily trained on censored datasets.

*checks notes* yes

I’m an Australian. We have a similar phrase with the same translation. In our language, we say: “cunts fucked”

Why can you just peg each other like a normal couple?

I’ve been trying to reach you about your car’s extended warranty

Straya’

This is way too opinionated imo. Many of these options I disagree with. There are github repos with much larger content suggestions and they all benefit from offering multiple options. There is often no such thing as a singular “best”.

So, my opinion of this list is that, unfortunately, while it is informative by listing names of software, it offers zero description as to why you’ve deemed it best. As I said, often times software has trade-offs, and that allows a competitor can be a better choice when those weaker areas are more important to a user. I suggest thinking about that and improving to fit that into your site.

But again, repos exist that already cover this in depth. So try to be different. Perhaps do reviews, add screenshots, and do more than those repo readmes can.

Why the fuck was this the comment that got me

Not to support the Taliban but women are scary