woops
is not like other people
Lo-fi melancholic technoAs much as I am sympathetic to your project, I think you might have to go deeper than the basics of advanced maths, physics, or blockchain tech for that sort of insight.
Lo-fi melancholic technoAs much as I am sympathetic to your project, I think you might have to go deeper than the basics of advanced maths, physics, or blockchain tech for that sort of insight.
Afaik sets are a way more general notion, but you can have them ordered or unordered.Are sets ever considered as vectors? Or does the order not matter in a set?
I agree, cursory understandings won't yield deep enough insights.As much as I am sympathetic to your project, I think you might have to go deeper than the basics of advanced maths, physics, or blockchain tech for that sort of insight.
In fact that is where I lost the mathematical thread, trying to multiply one set by another with completely incomprehensible results
Sort of yeah. You could have a 2d grid resulting in a whole load of points with the x axis as the first set and the y axis as the second set. It's a way of representing the two sets combined together by showing all the possible combinations (actually permutations) of their elements.Would that be vector multiplication? Resulting in a matrix?
Yeah but again you could possibly describe it. Suppose you had all the real numbers and you wanted to multiply it by itself, you could imagine a simple cartesian grid as being the result of that multiplication, we can't draw it going on for ever but we can sort of visualise or at least accept that it does so.Even so, a set too long to list would presumably result in a matrix too long to list. Assuming thats even how multiplying sets works.
Ah sorry, I'm repeating you.I assume what @woops is talking about is the carthesian product?
assuming you have two sets, A=[1,2,3] and B=[x,y]
their product would look like this:
AxB=[1x, 1y, 2x, 2y, 3x, 3y]
As far as I recall if either of these would be an empty set, you would end up with an empty set as the result.
Having a kind of masculine view on knowledge and skill, which effectively makes me feel like I'm being mocked every time I use something the nuances of which I do not fully comprehend.
Say you started learning scand languages, surely it would be easier to learn one properly at first, but I think it might be somehow approachable in the messy way, all at once.
Good point about languages, and I would point to etymology as a focus that underpins the field of different languages to focus on. Etymology would be a focus that has a more extensive reach than a focus on any language, and should in principle make a focus on any language more fruitful, no?None the less, I think what happens when exploring any topic you get unjustifiably excited about is the parallels draw themselves, you always take your current knowledge as the starting point.
Although I think I get the point, the surface level connections might be an efficient way of extending your ability to draw them further on, while advancing in each field potentially made easier.
Think learning a few languages at once. If you want to speak one fluently, it might not be the way to go, but say you pick one group to learn from, obviously lots of common points will emerge and since memory is much about the interconnections, surely it could be helpful?