6 ms·

it's amazing to me that pointing out a straight up mathematically factual inaccuracy is considered "angry" and "acting a fool".

• samatman 2y ago
  > there's a reason no one uses dual numbers (non-standard analysis) for anything (neither autodiff nor calculus itself) wrong > there are no [dual] numbers anywhere in [...] any other serious autodiff implementation wrong > please show me the source line number did > i'm wrong and this other guy is right correct. > this is why i hate this kind of "TIL, gee whiz" math tidbits acting a fool. angrily so.
  • fpgamlirfanboy 2y ago
    is this like some kind of version of truman show? the full sentence is >please show me the source line number in pytorch or tensorflow that defines this number why? because the original comment makes a claim about pytorch. it's all right there in black and white.
    • samatman 2y ago
      Which claim, this one? > Most autodiff packages (such as Pytorch) use something not much more advanced than this, although there are optimizations to speed it up (e.g. reverse mode diff). We get it: you're a mechanic who thinks that makes you an automotive engineer.
      • fpgamlirfanboy 2y ago
        i haven't a clue what that means but when julia's autodiff is the only one that is implemented using dual numbers i think the claim is pretty obviously false and seemingly everyone has an issue admitting that. without a doubt you'll just say something else sarcastic rather than admit it.