I've downloaded math Wikipedia for some file embedding & math text subject classification work. I'm doing a statistical analysis overview, right now and in the coming weeks.Q: Is there anything you'd be interested in knowing? It's circa 40k articles, I have all inter-links, given math categories, texts, number of edits and such. E.g. I could tell you that the longest article ishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_square(unless you include cryptography in a wide sense - then you get WWII articles also.)while the shortest is pretty muchhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency_(knowledge_bases)One purpose is "prompt engineering"-engineering work. On the embedding side (just to match files) I'll start with/huggingface/sentence-transformerssince I've used it before.So far I've spend most time on the categories and subject classification - and there's a lot to say and do there. But in principle I can check out anything. I'll eventually do more with the interlinks, but only in the coming months. Likely that I'll eventually also look at the text itself. And I'll eventually summarize in a pdf, dataset, or just a video.So you can pitch me short (data or statistical) questions or even bigger ideas what else I could do. Doesn't have to be a quick thing, I'll have to spend a good while on this.
How many orphaned pages (pages with no link directing to them) are there?
>>16890300PCA. Create a website/app where you write a phrase and the most similar sentences from wikipedia are outputted using various distance metrics (euclidean, manhattan, cosine, etc). Could function as kind of a search engine
>>16890510Oh you already did the second thing. PCA and t-sne still work
>>16890527Yeah the thing I build worked perfectly out of the box.For proximit search I used faiss.https://github.com/facebookresearch/faissI was mostly asking about visualization, to get singight. (For the user and maybe me later.)For now, in the pic >>16890300 I just sort the input text's embedding based on component size and visualize the difference to the top 1.But maybe, probably, if I use a tool for PCA then that will throw out other statistical informations as well. It's probably been done many times in the papers - I'll search
>>16888660>>16887047Maybe check the ISBN? Most articles use CS1, where the ISBN isn't required recommended
science is finally figuring this out
>>16890059Looks like one of those shitty linkedin motivational posts >"Yesterday my wife got fucked in the ass by her black boyfriend and while watching his BBC grow I learned how to grow as business, as it is hard and dark, but eventually success is achieved"
>>16890208No, its gods with extra steps, its not monotheistic in nature at all because computer simulations are well known collaborative efforts that have resulted from the work of thousands if not millions of different people.
>>16890059>from outside the game, it looks like thisPersonally, I don't consider shrooms to be a valid citation.
>>16891412Nobody cares about your unfalsifiable dogshit grift. Get a real fucking job. Sanctions permanent, payment never.
>>16890059Uhh, your """"AI"""" just slopped together some ancient facebook posts
Why does science say that saturated fat is bad for you but at the same time says greek yoghurt is good for you and has probiotic properties? The science just says that you shouldn't get more than 10% of your calories from saturated fats, it doesn't say what types of saturated fats though.
>>16891690idk what you mean by appeal to probability. these are mine for example. is it something to be concerned with or not?
>>16891690i don't think apob is particularly useful for anything.>ldl has a near linear correlation with cvdand as I said this is wrong
>>16891043non fat yogurt is not fat, non fat milk is not milk
>>16891593LDL is a symptom
>>16891024>The scienceno such thing, cite studies if you want real answers
Only post stuff that can be proven, no one cares about your headcanon
Why Health Posts?To bring Health issues into the discussion because they may matter into the future and make a difference.Not VerifiedFor understandability, the ideas in these posts are not verified by the Approximate Intelligence, they are just from my own experimentation, and sometimes the AI tells me that I am wrong, however not always, and sometimes not for Years.
Also, the AI wanted to mention only after the previous posts were made that some of the strains in the SeekingHealth product could cause issues for certain people, and that the CustomProbiotics Bifido only product could be tried instead and may or may not work.Also suggested was the idea that a 10 to 1 ratio of Bifido to Lacto could work if desired.
Lastly, for products that are in powder and not in capsule, being careful about contamination of the product so that no outside bacteria get into the probiotic is important.
>>16886404I too watched this video (its ludo)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsRmyY3Db1Y
Cool fact: OP's mom is virgin.
>2025, almost 2026>/sci/fags still believe in Monty Hall
what the fuck
did one of you fuckers fuck with my intelligence?
>>16891897def
>>16891893nigger run the simulation yourself if you want>>16887966I can give you the code, or you can slop it up yourself.
>>16891893Heh, it's a Python Monty
Its the end of the yearI want good newsWhat good shit has happened in science, healthcare, technology, math, whatever would make sense to highlight here this year
>>16880605I don't know if we can get it down to a teachable DIY approach, but I can explain the architectural necessities.
'There is not a generally safe assumption for the simulation' does not guarantee a safe response
>>16887932AI never complains
>>16891958It doesn't need to since its an abstraction that is getting pumped full of free energy by a legion of cucks and doesn't have to worry about wasting its precious limited time in a march towards its own biological mortality.
>>16892213Better tell me what good scientific news you remember from the past year.
Scientifically speaking, is it possible for souls to exist?
The way our brains work makes it seem extremely unlikely that souls exist.
>>16890682>We'd postulate some kind of soul substrate that does not interact with observable reality but does interact, with... what?I don't believe in souls, but the closest likely approximation is epiphenomenalism.It's a postulate that asserts that mental properties (subjective experiences/ qualia) are influenced by physical properties, but the causal link is one-way, meaning mental properties cannot affect physical properties in turn.It's logically coherent, but EP invites criticisms like, "Why do the attitudes of our experiences map onto physical properties that make evolutionary sense?", suggesting a two-way system in its place.For example, why do we feel bad when we feel pain? Why do we feel good when we have sex? Why do these experiences coincide so neatly? The view is unsatisfying because it can't answer this question.
>>16889047Science does not and never will dictate what is or is not possible.Science will only ever dictate what is or is not likely happen IF the future were to be like the past.
>>16889047Scientifically speaking, the best we can say is that no known mechanism exists for a soul to be possible. We are merely a collection of atoms and electrical impulses. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>16889047No, it's not possible.
Apologies for the basic question, but what are the Mathematical implications of Mesopotamia?
>>16892229>Funny you should ask...Im...something of a Babylonian myself.
LAVDATE SOL INVICTVM
>>16891974The sun is really, really big, dude.
>>16891952>Genuine, worthy, unironic, thoughtful thoughts about our sun?Yeah, idk anymore too...though my focus has been elsewhere for many years it appears many old "knows" have become "unknows". The new solutions should have ramifications on Earth's Geology/GeoPhysics as much as any other celestial body.https://youtu.be/T51N6bOzLA0
>>16891952sunspot broke resistance, insanity levels have peaked, calls on human psyche
>>16891952It could blow up at any second
This is what your social science would look like if it was rigorous. Haven't read this book? Then your social science isn't rigorous.dude has some free lectures on youtube which are pretty great btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHWNexYPFTY
>>16892221This is hardly a secret. But "hard" science produced a lot of garbage too. I published manipulated data in top journals.
>>16892225Why did you do that? Do elaborate
>>16892225Also whats your race/ethnicity
Is there any /sci/entifically proven way to maximise success and get everything you want out of life? How real is the law of attraction?
>>16889183>>16889223This. The law of attraction is ultimately about bullshitting yourself into being able to bullshit others.If you don't believe you can be successful, others will not believe you can be successful either. Of course you can't bullshit yourself into winning a Superb Owl at 45 being an obese midget who's never played sports before. But you can bullshit yourself into believing you're a good salesman and people will fall for it. It's pretty much how scammers work.
>>16889183Start learning how shit like this works.
>>16891649got it use genetic algorithms use all proteins as inputs and use generative fitness functions that morph to idealistic compounds that produce the least amount of oxidative stress so youd reverse aging
>>16891714probably computationally intensive so quantum computing would suffice
>>16889250No, if you don't want anything, you will be infinitely dissatisfied by the steady stream of things that come your way anyway until the day you die.
Opinion on this. Is it a good start into learning math?
>>16890196kys
>>16890243It has solutions to half the problems, im going through it right now, i alrdy have finished the linear algebra portion of the text and 3/9 portions of the single variable calculus, it is doable.
>>16890157It’s overrated but not a bad book at all. My only caveat is that the intuitive geometry section in particular is not done well.
>>16890157AOPS Prealgebra > AOPS Introduction to Algebra > AOPS Intermediate Algebra > Hammack’s Book of Proof > Paul Zeitz’s The Art and Craft of Problem Solving
>>16890157It's as basic as any other textbook can be
It's been 14 years since 4chan /sci/ posters solved a math open problem. Why has it been so long? What changed since 2011 that made 4chan users unable to solve math problems?We need to go back
well, 4chan also discovered the sleepsort algorithmbut that was a different era. now it's full of poltards, bots and retardst.retard
>>168718632011 was a rare year, actual research here is not likely since even a hobbyist will eventually publish in some chance, rather than simply posting an interesting result.
>>16871863No one cares about this retarded combinatorics problem
>What changed since 2011 that made 4chan users unable to solve math problems?With users like this:>>16890044what do you expect?
>>16886807Wait...we did?
Any books like this? General overviews of mathematics at a lowish level. Large book, lots of content. Since presumably that means nothing too too modern, it can be an older work, like this (50s, I think) - plus, I love the older style of writing.I've almost finished and have loved reading it.(Mathematics: It's Content, Method and Meaning.)
>>16890001You can feed some chatbot these lists (dont forget to add Mac Lane and Stillwell to the greentext) and ask for an overview, review excerpt and table of contents for each item and maybe that will help you decide. Then you can read the preface for your new shortlist and maybe finally settle or drop more options. That's my recommendation without knowing more details about what you want. The bibliography at the end of some of these books can help you too
>>16890115kys
>>16889361Princeton Companion to Mathematics is gigantic
>>16890434Excellent
Is it neccesary to do all the exercises or do i just do a few of them per sub section?
>>16886668So I checked his book. It’s very weird. I don’t think I have seen other calculus books with so much focus on applications and numerical calculations. Feels like reading a computational physics textbook at times. He spends more time on application compared to other analysis book with applications like Courant’s or Zorich’s.
>>16891742Its better go through mathematical analysis by brannan if you want a more detailed overview of calculus. And its better to go through mathematics for physicists by Altland if you want to peruse through regular calculus applications.
Abbotts first chapter is hard to understand, i hope i figure out more from solving the problems, he writes too terse at times amd he doesnt make enough graphs that would help in understanding what is going on.
>>16892156Someone should write a Visual Real Analysis for Retards book.
>>16880850this is why when i go to the gym i just put the treadmill on and let it run while i walk around and look at each piece of equipment then leave otherwise going to the gym can become a chore
