3 ms·
Yeah. Considering how much time we spend developing and using the damn things, we’ll call them the way we like, thank you very much. We don’t really need condes
by kergonath 4y ago
Yeah. Considering how much time we spend developing and using the damn things, we’ll call them the way we like, thank you very much. We don’t really need condescending software types to just come and explain to us how we’re saying it wrong. That is particularly rich, considering the tendency of CS people to cargo cult and borrow physical terms without understanding them.
- cozzyd 4y agoYes, please stop naming your software projects after elementary particles :).
- pyb 4y agoAlways annoying to hear machine learning people speak of "tensors"...
- cozzyd 4y agoI'm still waiting for std::pseudovector<T>
- peterhalburt33 4y agoIt aggravates me too, however, considering that the definition of a tensor according to mathematicians is an element of the tensor product of two vector spaces (or whatever other objects you can tensor together), and according to physicists would be an object which transforms like a tensor, I’m somewhat sympathetic. Neither definition sheds any light on what a tensor is to anyone who doesn’t already understand what a tensor is, and I’m convinced that the moment one understands what tensors are they lose the ability to explain what tensors are.
- mikebenfield 4y agoI have an academic mathematics background and I'm perfectly OK with this.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]