Feels a little dirty that the coding bit of my project ended up involving lots of rapid cycling between searching R documentation and looking up StackExchange R questions

So right now we're touching with ordinal arithmetic (+ and ⋅ ), which is getting bonkers, like how they're NOT commutative as with ℕ

So I've been exposed to R / SAS / SPSS for several weeks in this stats computation course now, and I reckon R to probably be the most useful pursuing further beyond the course (being completely free definitely helps).

Honestly though, is SAS and SPSS still in hot demand by companies as tools for stats/data work? Seems like Python and R are the more prominent options nowadays.

Don't have the actual solution for now, but I suspect (after some post-exam mulling) one way is to let $B_n = \{x/n^y: x,y\in \mathbb{Z}\},$ then $C_n = B_n \setminus \bigcup_{m<n} C_m,$ but I'm not too sure myself

test Q that I definitely botched:

How do you create a seq of pairwise disjoint subsets $C_n$ so their union is $\mathbb{Q}$, and each $\langle C_n, < \rangle$ is dense & without endpoints?

Wow, the statistical concept of turned 100 years old this July. That's so young in the mathematical history scale! It's hard for me to imagine statistics without variance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corr

@btcprox I don't know for sure, but it could have to do with the japanese puzzle publisher Nikoli. Wiki says Kakuro and Hashiwokakero are theirs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikoli_(

Noticed that a lot of maths/logic puzzles I recall tend to be Japanese (sudoku, kakkuro, kenken, hashiwokakero, nonogram)... is there some media bias going on, or are there genuinely an unusual amount of Japanese mathematicians slash puzzle inventors compared to other Asian countries?

Some madlad actually transcribed the whole of Calculus Made Easy - with help from the Project Gutenberg PDF - into HTML

Okay, coming from G+. Hope this will be a replacement or even better. The last time Google ditched something I used was with Reader, and that turned out to improve to UX to some extent while also removing the social component (for me, at least).

"One such study, recently published in the European Journal of Social , failed to find evidence that stereotype threat significantly impaired ’s inhibitory control and performance.

... “The ‘answers’ appear to be more complex than I had originally hoped, however. My has found mixed evidence for the theory of threat, and large-scale replication studies have sparked controversy over the robustness of this phenomenon.”"

psypost.org/2018/10/study-fail

shenanigans: slowly digesting the idea of chains & antichains in partial orders, and the idea behind Dilworth's Theorem characterizing a finite partial order's "width" as the minimum number of disjoint chains partitioning it

🙂∩☹️=😶

Didn't think that a stats course would see us openly talking about LSD

I've just noticed that Jeff Miller, who maintains a list of earliest known uses of various mathematical symbols, also has a list of "ambiguously defined mathematical terms at the high school level" - jeff560.tripod.com/ambiguities
Yes, of course 'whole number' is there.

Minor observation: all the lecturers I've encountered so far who've made reference to , always pronounce it as "latex" like the rubber, rather than "lay-teck" or "lah-teck"

Maybe they either genuinely don't know about the origins and the letter Chi involved, or they got tired of having to clarify themselves to the former group

Any others here who like studying maths but *not* any of the sciences?

May seem weirdly paradoxical given that many sciences require some good grasp of maths to strengthen their models and more precisely describe phenomena, but I couldn't keep up in pre-uni school that well (I've done physics, chemistry, biology). Not sure why. Something might have stopped me from properly retaining the extra non-mathematical systems in my head. 🤷‍♂️

Just wondering, do educators find it much harder to teach certain levels of to blind students, especially those born without sight? Some topics I know could be comprehended completely in abstract terms, but some other topics I understand lean on visual aids quite a bit (diagrams/plots). How might overcome that, especially at higher levels?

So in about two weeks I have to do some presentation on the cross-entropy method used in importance sampling... That's gonna be a fun(?) one to tackle, I think

From a test I had a few days ago, a question that stumped us lot (before solutions were given):

Given
$U = \{A:\: A\text{ is a set} \wedge A \approx \mathbb{N} \},$
how do you show that U is not a set?

A Mastodon instance for maths people. The kind of people who make $\pi z^2 \times a$ jokes.
Use $ and $ for inline LaTeX, and $ and $ for display mode.