=== ANCHOR POEM ===
═════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────────────
@user-36 neat thanks
when I said 1-1 = 1/10 I meant 1/1 in decimal except the denominator is in
base 1 meaning it's represented as 10 (since 10 in base 1 equals 1 in base 10.
Or pretty much any other base.)
I'm trying to figure out why 00 is undefined. There's a lot of math notation
in that wikipedia article and I'm working through it bit by bit... I feel like
there's a bug in the code of the universe and I'm trying to understand it.
Like... why is dividing by zero undefined? That seems like a bug to me.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧══════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
=== SIMILARITY RANKED ===
--- #1 fediverse/286 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────────
┌──────────────────────┐
│ CW: re: mathematics │
└──────────────────────┘
@user-211 I agree! The problem is the limit as x->0 from the left and right
trend toward different infinities, meaning it's neither -infinity nor
+infinity. Which makes me think that it's the value that's exactly in the
middle, AKA zero.
Why wouldn't 1/0 be zero? Division is just inverse-multiplication, and
multiplying anything by zero is zero. Why wouldn't division use the same
rules? I don't understaaaaaand T.T
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧═════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────┘
--- #2 fediverse/276 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────────
┌──────────────────────┐
│ CW: mathematics │
└──────────────────────┘
why the heck would -11/2 be defined but 1/0 not be? seems kinda sus to me.
maybe it's just... not reducible, the same way that 5+i isn't?
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧═════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────┘
--- #3 fediverse/43 ---
═════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────────────
@user-36 now base zero is interesting because it means there's NO BUCKETS AT
ALL, which means that any numbers you try to stuff nowhere don't overflow to
anywhere. Meaning each number is it's atomic value, and represented with a
different character. So 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H,
I, etc etc until we run out of symbols, in which case we'd need to start
making more.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧══════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
--- #4 fediverse/302 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────────
┌──────────────────────┐
│ CW: re: mathematics │
└──────────────────────┘
@user-211 math such as SUM(as x approaches infinity)(i*x)
this would add i, 2i, 3i, 4i, 5i, 6i, etc off into infinity. would that give
you complex infinity? a direction orthogonal to the X axis, yet infinitely far
in the direction of y. it'd probably have a positive and negative side too,
just saying.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧═════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────┘
--- #5 fediverse/3325 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────
@user-246
so... if infinity is the inverse of zero, then when inverted would infinity
also be zero?
if so, it follows that the [spectrum/dimension/cardinality/direction] that the
inversion is occurring upon might also have other steps inbetween. Unless it's
a binary thing, like "top and bottom" or "present and absent".
I wonder what those steps might look like? Clearly, since infinity minus
infinity does not equal zero, the steps inbetween (if they exist) would not be
numbers. If they were, then one single step from inverting infinity would be
1, but I don't believe that would be true.
On the topic of rings, the axioms would be things like "a ring is a ring if
you can trace a continuous line with a length of infinity across it's
ring-like-surface"? I wonder what the inverse of a length is... Or perhaps you
cannot invert a length, as to do so would give you a length of zero (in this
particular ring-like-case)
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────┘
--- #6 fediverse/5386 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────
@user-670 @user-1815 @user-1816
literally nobody has contributed to the one github repo I have
ever. I got like, one comment from some guy in China or Taiwan. It's been up
for like, 4 or 5 years and it's on my website. /shrug I guess most people
bounce off after reading the splash screen /shrug
to me, a FOSS project feels static because I don't believe in centralization
and I also don't have the bandwidth or need to work on it. /shrug
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────┘
--- #7 fediverse/45 ---
═════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────────────
@user-36 Question - how do you do those cool superscript and subscript
notations?
Also: I don't think base 1 falls apart with negative exponents, for example
consider 1^-1 ----- it would evaluate to 1/10 in this system, which is not
1/1. Another example, 1^-3 would evaluate to 1/1110, which seems accurate to
me.
As for 0^0, I guess I think it does equal 1? Bear with me:
for any number n raised to an exponent e, you can write it like this:
1 * n * n * n ... with as many "* n"s as you have n's. for example:
1 * 3 * 3 * 3 = 9
or
1 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 5 * 5 = 625
in each case there's 3 or 5 instances of "* n" tacked onto the end. I don't
know the math notation for that.
now, when you raise something to the power of zero, it looks like this:
1
because there's zero "* n"s added to the end.
For negative exponents of course you divide instead of multiply, which is why
it ends up looking like a fraction.
So, it makes sense to me that 0 ^ 0 would equal 1, because it'd look like this:
1
while 0^1 would be
1 * 0
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧══════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
--- #8 fediverse/853 ---
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────────────┐
║ @user-602 │
║ │
║ then it becomes a game of finding out "why they're interesting" │
║ │
║ which is sorta like cryptography I guess? de-cryptology? │
║ │
║ could be ordered like a podcast, like "look at what's special about this │
║ number, it corresponds to these mathematical operations that we both are │
║ executing, one after another... like hiding information in numbers. │
║ │
║ "okay you got 3 arbitrary axises, make one width one height and one depth of a │
║ box. then, every time you get a number, multiply every odd number spoken on │
║ the audio by 2 and divide every third number (per 10's digit, like 13 but not │
║ 16, also 13 but not 9) by 2. │
║ │
║ then, every 3rd number (like 9 but not 13) is the depth of the box, every 2nd │
║ number (like 4 but not 9 and 8) is the height of the box, every 1th number │
║ (like 1 but not like 1) is the width of the box. │
║ │
║ that box translates into a secret set of instructions that only the owner of │
║ the private key can know. things that were memorized, or written into stone. │
║ like knowing a secret language made just for you two │
╟─────────┐ ┌───────────┤
║ similar │ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────┴──────────┘
--- #9 fediverse/1246 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────────────
@user-883
hehe if I don't understand how it works it's difficult for me to use things.
My Linux friends get so exasperated with me because I'm like "cool script
gimme like 2 days to figure it out" and they're like "bro just use these
flags" and I'm like "no"
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────┘
--- #10 fediverse/36 ---
═════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────────────
consider:
x = 13 / 3, what is x?
step 1: translate 13 into base 3
step 2: digit shift once to the right
step 3: store underflow as remainder
step 3: translate back to base 10
x is 4 remainder 1
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧══════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
--- #11 fediverse/3326 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────
@user-246
It's interesting to me that we can divide by infinity, but not zero. I feel
like it's true that dividing by zero would equal infinity (or maybe zero too
lol) but I don't know how to prove it T.T
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────┘
--- #12 fediverse/4192 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────
whyyyyyyy am I cursed with this 1024 character limit
why can't it be like, 16 characters total. I think that'd limit my thoughts
enough.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────┘
--- #13 messages/110 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────
The best way to program computers is to organize them according to their
relations. Like, when x increases by 4 then y increases by 2 - basically, a
math equation that you can continuously solve by calculating more and more
comprehensively and deeply.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧══════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────┘
--- #14 fediverse/3030 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────
@user-570
ooooo separating additive and multiplicative, I love that. I do like
specificity unless "increased" and "more" always corresponds to +10% and +50%,
or if the "rate of increase" is a stat stored on the character then
"increased" could increase quality by however-many percentage,, while "more"
could be "more soldiers" x(charisma_stat)
I tend to think of percentages like "0-100 (or more) stacks" of a particular
effect, so I think that's just how my brain works... xD clumping them up into
discrete groups - like, anti-abstracting, or measuring things that are just a
few.
"is this belt better than this one?"
"is this pair of tongs
even for larger buffs like +10% or +50% or whatever, those are just... 10
stacks, or if percentages are usually round numbers like +10% and +50% then
like... +1 stack which calculates to +10%
the hard limit vs math limit thing you said is amazing ^_^
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────┘
--- #15 fediverse/581 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────
@user-428
sometimes I think about how much more productive I'd be if I had a code editor
that let me draw arrows and smiley faces and such alongside the code. Or if I
could position things strangely, like two functions side-by-side with boxes
drawn around them. Or diagrams or flowcharts or graphs or...
something that would output to raw txt format, but would present itself as an
image that could be edited.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧══════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────┘
--- #16 fediverse/4084 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────
┌──────────────────────┐
│ CW: re: -mentioned │
└──────────────────────┘
@user-1074
the more you try, the more you have to calculate, which is a problem, because
endlessly recursive calculations create infinite loops, which frankly are
impossible to compute because they defy computation! Not good, not ideal, no
thank you, not for me, no thanks, not what I'd like.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────┘
--- #17 fediverse/5851 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────
@user-1074
I realized there might be a lot of configuration required. Oh well here ya go:
https://pastebin.com/x40VXQnH
https://pastebin.com/H5C4umWq
https://pastebin.com/dgDeS5Xu
https://pastebin.com/JCLrwF1z
https://pastebin.com/As6diaYc
https://pastebin.com/0vwzJUW4
https://pastebin.com/jPKeV7D1
dependencies are dkjson.lua (included), bash, lua, luahpdf, and libharu.
throw that all in a directory and point an AI tool at it. Or just do it
yourself and waste an hour or three on something a computer can do in 2
minutes.
good luck it looks like this when it's done:
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────┘
--- #18 fediverse/997 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────────────
@user-727 @user-728 @user-729
I remember sitting in algebra II class when visualizing the distance between
numbers "clicked" for me. I was in a daze, I couldn't remember anything the
teacher had said, but for a moment (several months) I could remember how it
had seemed. Then I built new understandings, and my progress in math continued
relentlessly, more and more each year. it was hard, and eventually calc 1 made
me drop out of college 3 times. linear algebra was the other. (except I did
linear algebra first?) anyway, I always felt like I could see things visually,
from simple arithmetic to vector / pointer arithmetic, and when necessary it
was always difficult to translate it into words and forms. Like... I don't
have time to remember all these rules and operations, I have a picture in my
mind and I can't quite define it. (whatever the equation may be)
similar events happen consistently. they still do. just a few months ago I was
thinking about redesigning integer storage in memory. never twice tho.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────┘
--- #19 fediverse/572 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────
Hi, I'm learning about semaphores right now and trying to explain them to a
friend. But I only sorta understand how they work - can anyone look at this
pseudocode and tell me if I'm on the right track?
![Some C pseudocode working through the semaphore design pattern. Here's the text of the pseudocode: /* no lock example */ void start_thread(int* x) { *x += 1; } int main() { int x = 0; for (1000 times){ start_thread(&x); } print(x); } /* in this case you have no idea what will print because thread A will take x and be like "ah yes it's 423" and then in the next instruction it'll be like "I'll increment this to be 424" and in the next one it'll say "okay now it's time to store 424 in the variable X" but like... there's a thousand threads all doing that at the same time, so odds are you'll have 5 that are like "ah yes this is 423 I'll set it to 424" */ /* not a good plan. Need a lock, so only one thread can use it at once. */ /* mutex example: */ void start_thread(int* x, int* x_mutex) { *x += 1; *x_mutex = 0; } int main() { int x = 0; int x_mutex = 0; for (1000 times){ while (x_mutex != 0){ } /* do nothing */ x_mutex = thread_id; start_thread(&x, &x_mutex); } print(x); } /* this should print 1000, but it's basically as slow as doing it single threaded. */ #define MAX 10 void start_thread(int* x, int* x_semaphore) { *x += 1; *x_semaphore += 1; } int main() { int x[MAX]; int x_semaphore = MAX; for (1000 times) { for (int i = 0; i < MAX; i++) { x_semaphore -= 1; start_thread(&x[i], &x_semaphore); } while (x_semaphore != MAX) { } /* do nothing */ } int value = sum(x, MAX); print(value); }](/similar-different/media/224b236a8660c34a.png "Some C pseudocode working through the semaphore design pattern. Here's the text of the pseudocode: /* no lock example */ void start_thread(int* x) { *x += 1; } int main() { int x = 0; for (1000 times){ start_thread(&x); } print(x); } /* in this case you have no idea what will print because thread A will take x and be like \"ah yes it's 423\" and then in the next instruction it'll be like \"I'll increment this to be 424\" and in the next one it'll say \"okay now it's time to store 424 in the variable X\" but like... there's a thousand threads all doing that at the same time, so odds are you'll have 5 that are like \"ah yes this is 423 I'll set it to 424\" */ /* not a good plan. Need a lock, so only one thread can use it at once. */ /* mutex example: */ void start_thread(int* x, int* x_mutex) { *x += 1; *x_mutex = 0; } int main() { int x = 0; int x_mutex = 0; for (1000 times){ while (x_mutex != 0){ } /* do nothing */ x_mutex = thread_id; start_thread(&x, &x_mutex); } print(x); } /* this should print 1000, but it's basically as slow as doing it single threaded. */ #define MAX 10 void start_thread(int* x, int* x_semaphore) { *x += 1; *x_semaphore += 1; } int main() { int x[MAX]; int x_semaphore = MAX; for (1000 times) { for (int i = 0; i < MAX; i++) { x_semaphore -= 1; start_thread(&x[i], &x_semaphore); } while (x_semaphore != MAX) { } /* do nothing */ } int value = sum(x, MAX); print(value); }")
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧══════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────────────┘
--- #20 fediverse/4664 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────
@user-1725
LLMs can't do math. Duh. That's like asking an "if check" to do recursion.
What he should have done is had the AI output the requested calculation as
JSON or something and use a calculator function call with the specified
arguments instead of trying to memorize every answer. But that requires more
functionality that has no reason to exist if your only goal is to be a tech
bro and build up a vacuous product that exists only to be hoovered up by
Google or Microsoft.
We could build such beautiful things if we just dethroned those giants. They
suck the creativity out of tech.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────┘
|