eriktaubeneck

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by eriktaubeneck 11y ago

   Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
2. 2.▲
   by eriktaubeneck 11y ago

   Thanks, I just realized that when I introduced the notation above, I just used I(f), but then when I used it below I wrote Im(f). I will clear that up.
3. 3.▲
   by eriktaubeneck 11y ago

   Great point, and I apologize for the confusion. The function should be C to C, with the added restriction of R to R.
4. 4.▲
   by eriktaubeneck 11y ago

   Did not intend to make any claims that Python libraries don't do this, but rather to explore the subject as a way to better understand the implementation and limits of floating point numbers and numerical analysis based on them.
5. 5.▲
   by eriktaubeneck 11y ago

   That's an interesting point I had not considered. My view (mostly from the math side, my shallow dive into physical systems was just from a PDE class in grad school) is from the view of unstable differential equations where very small
6. 6.▲
   Behind the Scenes of the Startup Podcast(medium.com)

   4 points by eriktaubeneck 12y ago|0 comments
7. 7.▲
   by eriktaubeneck 12y ago

   This is what I originally had but I felt that the Python `while` was actually a bit more true to the way a C for loop is constructed (and `range` seems a very not C thing to do.) It's not perfect!
8. 8.▲
   by eriktaubeneck 12y ago

   I like the solution, but I usually keep "The Zen of Python" in mind when writing 'Pythonic' code.
9. 9.▲
   by eriktaubeneck 12y ago

   I like this one. I don't know enough Haskell to have come up with it on my own (but I should!)
10. 10.▲
    by eriktaubeneck 12y ago

    While I wrote this with tongue in cheek, I also aimed to illuminate the power of Python's flexibility along with the inherent danger therein. I do admit the Javacious example was over the top though ;)