namark @namark@qoto.org

@hrisskar there just one number there that is of any consequence, and it's just ordinary 2, nothing scary. Though you get a pass cause you are from morrowind... well, deployed in morrowind... same thing.

@Merristasis #invertthat

@hrisskar #invertthat

@billstclair

That kind of wars only exists in the minds of those who wage them. It's funny how you say that you won't engage, while very much engaging. Was that the joke?

C is a terrible portable assembler, it doesn't even have addition with carry or long multiplication. Hopefully C++ would fix it... in another 20 years...

@Absinthe

@freemo must have remembered if you did... one does not simply forget algebra they have done... so... HOMEWARK!

@freemo did you do the algebra for inversion?

#invertthat

Have you watched this?

https://www.numberphile.com/videos/ptolemys-theorem

Why haven't you watched this?

Watch this or get out :V

@billstclair

Wha? Abomination? Preposterous! It's just different, have you heard of exploring different things? Much fun!
Unless your fingers lost their dexterity, in which case sorry for teasing... though they probably wouldn't have, if you have used vim...

@Absinthe

@freemo then... any "superhero" movie/comic/game: street fighting for children??

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe yeah, still a machine process, specifically designed so that humans don't have to keep track of types at least from my point of view. I find myself having to keep track of types in dynamically typed languages way more than in statically typed ones.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe I meant the machine that is running the compiler to keep me in check. In a very pedantic relentless machinic(mechanic) way. Should have said compiler I guess.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe I would say it is the most interesting operation, but I wouldn't call it natural, and definitely not multiplication.

Types do make things clear, for the machine, but not always for humans that read the code. I want my compiler taking care of types, not doing it myself all the time. I can only see a point in defining matrix multiplication the way it usually is, if there is some generic code that multiplies and can accept both numbers and matrices, and does the "same" thing to both. I, thinking it's just as hard to come up with an example of that as of component wise multiplication of matrices... But the latter is such a trivial operation, that it has got to be useful for something, in practice. I don't know, maybe image processing, masking an image or modifying its intensity? And it's exactly the same for a number or a vector, both masking and scaling are applicable concepts, that makes sense for a multiplication to do.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe I know mathematicians are smarter than me, I was just snarking... so product, makes sense, use that, don't use the multiplication symbol. Use multiplication symbol for component wise multiplication, which you use to implement dot_product, which you use to implement matrix_product.

Is component wise multiplication of matrices/tensors useful? Could be? Why not? Need to multiply two tables of numbers together, could happen to anyone... I don't see any harm in that, if we agree that there is no other meaningful use for multiplication in that context. Unless the argument is that the * symbol should not be reserved for multiplication... but even mathematicians don't do thaaat... they just allow themselves to skip the symbol, that's why it looks like multiplication.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe Yeah, and for natural numbers there is a natural reason it is called multiplication. Multi means many, right? "Manyficiatoin" I guess. Same kind of word root appears in other languages I know. When they generalized they should have picked a different name. Like "ah, it's funny it kind of acts like multiplication, but it's definitely not, so lets come up with a name for it a poet won't be ashamed of, instead of abusing our language".

The straight forward way to define a multiplication on vectors is compponent-wise. It doesn't break anything, it is simply uninteresting, which is fitting for a basic operation. None of those other things should be called multiplication, IMHO.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe Sure it behaves like a multiplication, if we forget what multiplication was, then take the common denominator of our 3 favourite operations (that kinda sorta resembled multiplication in some cases) and call that multiplication, cause we're feeling entitles. I guess you could call it "general multiplication", but that would very uncreative (and would also require forgetting the natural language you are using). I think this is quite unfortunate, and confusing in practice, even when doing algebra on paper.

A special diagonal matrix solves that one thing, but feels like a hack to me, or a high level API for people who really like matrices. I much rather my matrix be a vector of vectors (which indeed is not just any vector, unless you want to look at it that way) and have access to all fundamental operations on them, including the ones one would use to optimize a special higher level matrix/tensor type you present to mathematicians, for whatever perverted things they are into these days.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe ah yes, let's be smartasses and call 3 completely different operation, none of which behave like a multiplication, multiplications, and then keep reminding everyone to be careful cause these things don't behave like your usual multiplication, oh no they don't. Got to love mathematicians.

Component-wise multiplication of arrays makes as much sense as any other component-wise operation. For vectors it can be used for disproportionate scaling or masking. An equivalent matrix transform would be wasteful, especially in higher dimensions... unless by some miracle it's internally optimized to component-wise multiplication of course.

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe I understood it as a memory issue, as in "got a lot of ideas, but forget or lose interest", rather than a creativity issue, as in "don't even have ideas anymore". Though if a list is a proposed solution it has got to be the former, right?... my point was that it's ok to lose interest, just hoard the ideas, and eventually something will stick, and it'll cross several things off several lists, even if for no other reason than the sheer amount of hoarding. A few complete "projects" are cool and all, but so are dozens of incomplete ones and hoards of never even started ones.

No idea how to fix an interest compass though... I guess sharing your hoard of ideas with friends/peers helps? (even if they don't have the same interests)... or, if you're like me, imagining that at some point you might have friends/peers who you could share your hoard of ideas with.