3 ms·
The wikipedia definition is directly equivalent to #1. Try rewriting it with f(a, b) = a ⋅ b. That's not to say #3 and #1 are unrelated, though.
by GrantMoyer 2y ago
The wikipedia definition is directly equivalent to #1. Try rewriting it with f(a, b) = a ⋅ b.
That's not to say #3 and #1 are unrelated, though.
- dataflow 2y agoWhere I've been lost is where the comment said "which is that there are several different (but related) things"... if they're equivalent then isn't this just making my point?