howling

8 ms·

1.
by howling 2mo ago
Andrew Kelley described Github employees as 'monkeys' and 'losers'. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46065366
2.
by howling 8mo ago
Same. I don't even use LLM normally as I found polars' syntax to be very intuitive. I just searched my ChatGPT history and the only times I used it are when I'm dealing with list and struct columns that were not in pandas.
3.
by howling 9mo ago
Terrence Tao blogged about this. https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/dodgson-condensati...
4.
by howling 2y ago
The paper's introduction says: we first establish algebraic product formulas for the direct computation of the Clifford product inverses of multivectors in Clifford algebras Cl(p, q), n = p + q \le 5, excluding the case of divisors of
5.
by howling 2y ago
Sorry I forgot to answer your question: To rotate a bivector of the form v ^ w, just do R v ^ R w where R is the rotation matrix. This is a linear map so you can extend the operation linearly to arbitrary bivector.
6.
by howling 2y ago
There is no equivalent notion of rotor in EA. I would say its most important use is that you need it to define differential form in which we can define exterior derivative and integeration in arbitrary differentiable manifolds. It also enab
7.
by howling 2y ago
> In 2D and 3D GA, every non-zero k-vector and versor has an inverse. Of course by definition every versor has an inverse. The invertibility of k-vector gets hairier for higher dimensions though. Even in 3D GA, some mixed-grade elements
8.
by howling 2y ago
You have to read the first paragraph as well. > I have given a lot of reasons why I think GA is problematic: the Geometric Product is a bad operation for most purposes. It really implements operator composition and is not a very fundamen
9.
by howling 2y ago
> but the biggest giveaway is how he says we should move away from quaternions I'm sorry I must have missed that part. Can you point me to where did he say this?
10.
by howling 2y ago
First of all it is only invertible for some non-zero elements, especially if `a` is a linear combination of multivectors or we work in PGA that explicitly adds a basis vector of norm 0. Yes sometimes it is useful but that doesn't aut
11.
by howling 2y ago
All of these stuff can be done in normal linear algebra. Some (not all) of the operations can be done more efficiently with GA in low dimensions. It is neither more concise nor more intuitive to understand than normal linear algebra.
12.
by howling 2y ago
> Can you formulate a lot of stuff much more efficiently and concisely, and does it help gain new perspective on some things? yes, absolutely. It provides a wonderful framework for expressing geometric ideas. Can you elaborate on what st
13.
by howling 2y ago
> Yes, sometimes you just need the dot product, and sometimes you just need the exterior product. If you are coding, or giving the final form of some formula, you don't have to always put both of them in your code or paper. In my ex
14.
by howling 2y ago
An article that argues against GA: https://alexkritchevsky.com/2024/02/28/geometric-algebra.htm... TLDR: - GA tends to attract a lot of crackpot. In fact most mathematicians avoid the name Geoemtric algebra a
15.
by howling 3y ago
You might be interested in https://github.com/HigherOrderCO/HVM
16.
by howling 3y ago
I always dislike the unnecessary use of dual of dual. We should define tensor product as a quotient space of all linear combinations of v₁⊗v₂ as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_product#As_a_quotient_s... The ad
17.
by howling 3y ago
System F just isn't flexible enough to encode most of mathematics. You need at the minimum dependent type and preferably a more flexible identity type to avoid setoid hell. The closest attempts I know of are HOTT in Coq and Cubical Agd
18.
by howling 3y ago
Symmetric interaction combinators (an instance of interaction nets like 2-state 3-symbol Turing machine is a particular type of Turing Machine) only has 3 agents and 3 rewriting rules. This makes it about as simple as lambda calculus with 3
19.
by howling 3y ago
I think interaction nets [0] is actually a simpler model and can simulate Turing Machine efficiently. I wish courses in Computability/Complexity theory would be taught in interaction nets instead of Turing Machines as the program writt
20.
by howling 3y ago
This is the same company that creates the touted highly secure LiteLok Gold that LPL cuts in 16s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-On0DGcDlc I'm skeptical of any bike lock's security that is not reviewed by LPL.
21.
by howling 4y ago
None, but I have written code that requires more data structure and algorithm knowledge than inverting a binary tree (at my job).
22.
by howling 4y ago
Yeah it's not clear what he was asked. Swapping the direction of every edge of a binary tree would result in a DAG that is likely no longer a binary tree though.
23.
by howling 4y ago
> Google: 90% of our engineers use the software you wrote (Homebrew), but you can’t invert a binary tree on a whiteboard so fuck off. — Max Howell (@mxcl) If inverting a binary tree means swapping the left and right subtrees of every nod
24.
by howling 4y ago
I have a similar experience at Oxford. However, the introduction course doesn't even cover IO monad and all of our code are run in repl. No wonder the students regard Haskell as impractical as they did not even write a full program in
25.
by howling 4y ago
nuclear fusion reaction with net energy gain?
26.
by howling 4y ago
In some sense, classical probability is just the study of category of Markov Kernels [0]. We can gain much of the insight without a lot of measure theory/functional analysis machineries by restricting to its full subcategory of finite
27.
by howling 4y ago
I'm 1800 rapid on chess.com and can't play blindfold beyond the opening.
28.
by howling 4y ago
Football field doesn't have a fixed length and can be anywhere between 90m and 120m. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_pitch
29.
by howling 4y ago
I assume Gradient Boosting Machine.
30.
by howling 4y ago
Yes it's not necessary for them to be losing in the long term for Jane Street to be profitable, but I suspect they are.

More ›