3 ms·

X^2 - 3x - 18 =0 [...] This is how the equation is created: x(x+3) = 18 wat Maybe don't do very fast recaps if you're not going to proofread them. Incidenta

X^2 - 3x - 18 =0 [...] This is how the equation is created: x(x+3) = 18 wat Maybe don't do very fast recaps if you're not going to proofread them. Incidentally I assume the formulae in this article were done with MathJax or its Julia equivalent, they render great but can't be copied from the text. Overall a good article (and a great ad for Julia) but stumbling blocks like the one above ensure some readers won't make it any farther.

grandempire 2y ago
Is the issue here quadratic factorization is not obvious or that the sign is wrong? Note that x(x+3) = 18 and x(x-3) = 18 are valid models of the same problem. One finds the longer side in terms of the shorter, or vice versa
- hansvm 2y ago
  Looks like proofreading (sign being wrong) to me.
  - __rito__ 2y ago
    Yes, it is absolutely that. I have corrected it, and it should be okay now.
- zombot 2y ago
  Both variants (+3 & -3) have the same shape, and so do their derivatives, but they do land in different places on the X axis. Is that irrelevant?
- __rito__ 2y ago
  > "Note that x(x+3) = 18 and x(x-3) = 18 are valid models of the same problem. One finds the longer side in terms of the shorter, or vice versa" That is the reason I made the mistake initially. They both were correct in my mind. But that's no excuse for the mistake, and I made a correction.
beepbooptheory 2y ago
Well if they made it that far, they also read that this article is for "people who are already familiar with Differential Equations from Mathematics." I think if you're already familiar, a single wrong sign is not something thats going to be particularly hindering. It's more just something to jump on if you are, for some reason, itching to criticize it.
__rito__ 2y ago
It was my fault, and was created by a moment of absent-mindedness. They are both correct individually, but definitely wrong when read together. I corrected it. Thanks for reading the article and pointing out the obvious mistake. I will proofread more carefully and use a spell checker from the next time. There were some typos, too, that I corrected since then. Like 'langauge', 'equaion', etc. I wrote the article in Jupyter Lab with a Julia kernel. I just wrote LaTeX in Markdown cells. I rendered the article with quarto and quarto is also how the blog is created. I am ignorant about how it renders LaTeX in webpages. Pandoc and MathJax seems to be involved. I am not sure. > "Overall a good article (and a great ad for Julia) but stumbling blocks like the one above ensure some readers won't make it any farther." Thank you for your compliment. I absolutely don't want people not making it any farther due to a small mistake I made. I will be more mindful about it from the next time.

grandempire 2y ago

Is the issue here quadratic factorization is not obvious or that the sign is wrong? Note that x(x+3) = 18 and x(x-3) = 18 are valid models of the same problem. One finds the longer side in terms of the shorter, or vice versa

hansvm 2y ago
Looks like proofreading (sign being wrong) to me.
- __rito__ 2y ago
  Yes, it is absolutely that. I have corrected it, and it should be okay now.
zombot 2y ago
Both variants (+3 & -3) have the same shape, and so do their derivatives, but they do land in different places on the X axis. Is that irrelevant?
__rito__ 2y ago
> "Note that x(x+3) = 18 and x(x-3) = 18 are valid models of the same problem. One finds the longer side in terms of the shorter, or vice versa" That is the reason I made the mistake initially. They both were correct in my mind. But that's no excuse for the mistake, and I made a correction.

beepbooptheory 2y ago

Well if they made it that far, they also read that this article is for "people who are already familiar with Differential Equations from Mathematics." I think if you're already familiar, a single wrong sign is not something thats going to be particularly hindering. It's more just something to jump on if you are, for some reason, itching to criticize it.

__rito__ 2y ago

It was my fault, and was created by a moment of absent-mindedness. They are both correct individually, but definitely wrong when read together. I corrected it. Thanks for reading the article and pointing out the obvious mistake. I will proofread more carefully and use a spell checker from the next time. There were some typos, too, that I corrected since then. Like 'langauge', 'equaion', etc. I wrote the article in Jupyter Lab with a Julia kernel. I just wrote LaTeX in Markdown cells. I rendered the article with quarto and quarto is also how the blog is created. I am ignorant about how it renders LaTeX in webpages. Pandoc and MathJax seems to be involved. I am not sure. > "Overall a good article (and a great ad for Julia) but stumbling blocks like the one above ensure some readers won't make it any farther." Thank you for your compliment. I absolutely don't want people not making it any farther due to a small mistake I made. I will be more mindful about it from the next time.