Chinjut

30 ms·

391.
Why does this product equal π/2? (3Blue1Brown)(youtube.com)
4 points by Chinjut 9y ago|0 comments
392.
A New Proof of the Wallis Product for Pi (3Blue1Brown)(youtube.com)
2 points by Chinjut 9y ago|0 comments
393.
How to solve 2D equations using color(youtube.com)
2 points by Chinjut 9y ago|0 comments
394.
by Chinjut 9y ago
von Neumann architecture vs. Harvard architecture (of computers)
395.
by Chinjut 9y ago
There is a frequent pattern which concerns me of primarily justifying the desire for reduced work hours in terms of the alleged increase in productivity this will bring about (by allowing recharging, preventing burnout, etc.). I worry that
396.
by Chinjut 9y ago
The appropriate headline here would be "Time Inc. Sells Itself to Meredith Corp., Backed by Koch Brothers". That is the actual headline of this article, and as far as I can tell, there is no inaccuracy in it nor any good reason to
397.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Mitchell and Webb had a great bit on this point: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E
398.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Income's value is… diminishing with existing wealth. Receiving 20% of the income and having an amazingly outsized 40% of the wealth is more than enough reason to consider seeking funding from the 1% rather than their far poorer country
399.
by Chinjut 9y ago
No matter how large the pie is, we might question how it is to be carved up. The size of the pie doesn't answer the question of who gets to eat it. If it grows and grows, we still make a decision as to how to distribute that growth.
400.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Yes, poor people today have access to technology which didn't exist hundreds of years ago. What of it? Poor people everywhere in every era under every economic system have access to technology which didn't exist in the past; this
401.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Yes. (Among a million other things. ALL the rules that determine who is a billionaire and who is a beggar are social choices, because wealth is a social relation. The fact that there even are these particular different possible ways for peo
402.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Like Steve Jobs made the iPhone with his own hands... He played a role in the creation of the iPhone, but the level and proportion of reward he received for that role is a choice we made as a society, not an intrinsic physical fact. I guara
403.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Shocked and saddened to see such blatant, disgusting victim-blaming…
404.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Lots of people are passionate about academic research in their chosen field, and extremely talented and qualified and even PhDed, and still don't get to do it (certainly, it's difficult to get time to do things for free in a world
405.
by Chinjut 9y ago
You have definitely gotten Dijkstra's intent with that famous quote completely backwards…
406.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Not even ten years later. Occupy was fall of 2011. Bernie Sanders ran in the primary from spring 2015 through spring/summer 2016 for the election of fall 2016. So, more like four to five years later.
407.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Seems to be missing soy and lentils from the ingredients.
408.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Yes, to a great deal, it is.
409.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Whether or not this proof stands, this author, a tenured professor whose professional research is in this area, seems exceedingly likely to know this very standard material.
410.
by Chinjut 9y ago
An algorithm could certainly be correct (in the sense of always giving the correct result) without being proven to do so (or even without any such proof existing, in some particular formal system). You are not wrong about that.
411.
by Chinjut 9y ago
It's common not to explain where the quadratic formula comes from (which is silly, it's straightforward enough to show, but standard math education curricula are shot through with this blind formula memorization nonsense), but… do
412.
by Chinjut 9y ago
What actually happened, probably, is that humans first counted by putting things in correspondence with fingers; actual bijections between fingers and things. This naturally led to ten, the number of fingers total and thus a grouping size o
413.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Frankly, though, I'd prefer no one ever used the "conventional language of probability", because it leads to precisely these miscommunications. If the question had been phrased "Out of two-children families that have at
414.
by Chinjut 9y ago
You can't assume "the boy is k1". The original 2 * 7 * 2 * 7 cases were indeed all equiprobable different cases. And we're not given that K1 is a boy. We're given that at least one child is a boy. If K1 is a girl an
415.
by Chinjut 9y ago
There are 2 * 7 * 2 * 7 ways to assign gender and birth-day-of-week to two children. By convention, all are considered equiprobable (this is the same as assuming kids' genders and birth day-of-weeks are independent of each other and of
416.
by Chinjut 9y ago
I mean, it's just as arbitrary in my rephrased version. I could just as well ask "What proportion of two-children families with a boy born on Monday have girls?". But, very well, the different wording prompted differing intui
417.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Yes, that's also "paradoxical", though probably not the paradox that would trip people up first unless they'd seen the other problem first. But, you're right that I may have misread which departure from expected ans
418.
by Chinjut 9y ago
The 14/27 answer in the video is correct, incidentally. Also, I notice you said "Somehow knowing the day of the week the boy was born changes the result. It's completely bizarre." Remember, though, there's no "
419.
by Chinjut 9y ago
It's not that the probability is close to 1/2 that makes it paradoxical for most people. It's that the probability differs from 1/2 at all. As in the OP of this very thread saying "Somehow knowing the day of the wee
420.
by Chinjut 9y ago
Sure, and if the quibble was along the lines of "You never explicitly said boys and girls are 50-50 distributed! You never explicitly said elder and younger childrens' birth genders are independent! You never explicitly said birth

More ›