Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or  rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power realtime personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Search  "math"

I know a guy who writes everything in Haskell.
He started learning it because his parents got him into a math school (and math schools in Russia use either Python or Haskell), he liked it, but later he dropped out. Today, apart from Haskell, he only really knows HTML and CSS, and maybe some JavaScript.
He writes backend AND frontend in Haskell and uses some kind of JRPC stuff to manage all that. He told me that his life is a pure heaven. He IS RELEVANT (!!!!!!), his apps always run without bugs (because in Haskell you can mathematically prove that there are no bugs), they are performant, faster than C (because you can't write a complex enough app in C that will be as efficient as compiled Haskell, because it's you vs compiler). He doesn't have any problems in life whatsoever. He never got burned out, he never got anxiety or depression. He doesn't act pretentiously and stuff, he's just a normal person who rarely even mentions that he can program.
Science says it can't be done! You can't only know Haskell and be a relevant software engineer! You know what, he didn't _know_ it was impossible. He's like that grandpa from a meme, he got Alzheimers, but because of it he forgot that he had Alzheimers, and now remembers everything.
The fun thing is that he looks like a typical gopnik, with adidas suits and stuff.
What a gem of a person.26 
Most of the tech YouTubers are really noob engineers.
Joma was a data scientist. He is an L3 engineer at Google and he hasn't done much during the last 1 year based on his internal stats.
I saw tech leads stats while he was at Google and that dude did nothing during his time. I'm sure he was an IC before he became a lead.
Clement talks about system design bull shit but he's a math major who worked on some angular front end while he was at Google. Basically his experience in tech is mostly involving using matbutton and matinput. He also quit FB in a month.
Listening to tech lead gives me cancer. That guy was also some front end/ mobile engineer. I don't think any less of mobile engineers but tech leads acts as if he built some large scale systems at Google and FB. His opinion about react native shows how much of a noob he is. He also talked about docker in one of his video which showed he had some fundamental misunderstanding of what docker is. In his courses, he struggles to explain simple algorithms.
I don't know how these people have the courage to claim themselves as some sort of experts in the field when they are extreme noobs. They also sell some shady courses and are robbing innocent college kids.
One thing they all do well is talk. Which I give them 10/10.11 
I'm in a few women in tech groups. A woman, who is a highly experienced developer, shared that she had a conversation with her male friend, who is a startup founder. He said that his criteria for recruitment are high levels of math and physics since high school and early interest in programming (e.g. age of 10). She said his criteria made her sad and excluded.
A fellow woman developer commented that it's reasonable to feel sad when you learn your good friend is an idiot. I snorted some Monster out of my nose reading this and I'm still coughing and chuckling.
To be honest, the founder's requirements do sound super ridiculous, and I imagine his startup is made up of clones of the same guy type, wearing different shades of gray t shirts and sandals with socks.58 
I've seen several rants about dumb/useless teachers, college and the CS degree studies; today is a good day to vent out some "old" memories.
Around two semesters ago I enrolled in a Database seminar with this guy, a tall geek from the 80's with a squeaky voice, so squeaky mice could had an aneurysm if they listened to him.
Either way this guy was a mess, he said he was an awesome coder, that we were still "peasants" when it came to coding, that relational databases had nothing on him since he was an awesome freelancer and did databases every day, that we had to redo the programming course with him and with his shitty, pulled out of the ass own C++ style guide with over 64 different redacted rules.
He gave us sample code of "how it should be done" in Java...it ain't my favorite language but fuck me a fucking donkey could have written better code with his ass!! He even rewrote Java's standard input function and made it highly inefficient. He still wrote in a structural paradigm in OOP languages! And he dared to make this code reviews were he would proyect someone's code and mock it in front of the class as he took off points, sometimes going to the negative realm (3,2,1,0,1...)
But you know what's shittier? That he actually didn't even attend, 90% of the time, it was literally this:
> Good morning class
> Checks attendance. . .
> I'll be back, I'm going to check in...
> 1 hour 45 minutes later (class was 2 hrs long)  comes back
> do you have any doubts?
> O.o no...? I'm ok.
> We're done
Not only that, he scheduled from 4 to 17 homeworks throughout the week, I did the math, that was around 354 files from everyone; of course he didn't check them, other students from higher semesters did and they gained each point taken from students making students from lower semesters get the short end of the stick.
How did I pass? He didn't understood my code or database schema and he knew he couldn't fail me as he had no ground to stand on.
Thanks for listening, if you got to the end of this long ass post and had a similar experience I'd love to read it.13 
Haha kids, you're all dead wrong. Here's my story.
There is a thing called “emergence”. This is a fundamental property of our universe. It works 100% of the time. It can't be stopped, it can't be mitigated. Everything you see around you is an emergent phenomenon.
Emergence is triggered when a lot of similar things come together and interact. One water molecule cannot be dry or wet, but if you have many, after a certain number the new property emerges — wetness. The system becomes _wet_.
Professionalism is an emergent phenomenon too, and its water molecules are abstract knowledge. Learn tech things you're interested in, complete random tutorials, code, and after a certain amount of knowledge molecules is gained, something clicks inside your head, and you become a professional.
Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts here. Uni education can make you a professional seemingly quicker, but it's not because uni knowledge is special, it's because uni is a perfect environment to absorb a lot of knowledge in a short period of time.
It happened to me too. I started coding in Pascal in fifth grade of high school, and I did it till sixth. Then, seventh to ninth were spent on my uni's afterschool program. After ninth grade, I drop out of high school to get to this uni's experimental program. First grade of uni, and we're making a CPU. Second grade, and we're doing hard math, C and assembly.
And finally, in the third grade, it happens. I was sitting there in the classroom, it was late, and I was writing a recursive sudoku solver in Python. And I _felt_ the click. You cannot mistake it for anything else. It clicks, and you're a changed person. Immediately, I realized I can write everything. Needless to say, I was passing everything related to code afterwards with flying colours.
From that point, everything I did was just gaining more and more experience. Nothing changed fundamentally.
Emergence is forever. If you learn constantly, even without a concrete defined path, I can guarantee you that you _will_ become a professional. This is backed by the universe itself. You cannot avoid becoming one if you're actively accumulating emergence points.
Here's the list of projects I made in the past 11 years: https://notion.so/uyouthe/...
I'm 24.9 
Cyber security. Deep knowledge of cyber security and networks is what I wish I had. The math stuff that no one bothers with, specifically.7

Too much math ? Seriously ? Had you made the effort to atleast 'look' at them, you would see how simple they are. And just because I use the word 'equation' does not automatically make it a Volterra Integral Equation.
Could've discussed the subject at hand. But no, let's bring on the judgement. Who wants to ever discuss the subject ?4 
If only I knew about the manga like that during my university times... Math could have been a piece of cake.
Manga guide series includes 40 books
Including manga guide to databases.
Closest more professional level same level friendly, would be head first series8 
In my last rant (https://devrant.com/rants/5523458/...) I regaled you lovely folks of how I had to diplomatically yet firmly defend my work/life boundaries during offwork hours for nonlife threatening affairs (a frustratingly common occurrence), and concluded the thread by mentioning that I still had a job, but would make a note of my frustration of that for whatever exit interview happens.
Well, no need for those notes any longer.
I and half of the engineering force, along with several senior managers were laid off this morning in the form of a "mandatory onsite all hands".
I live and work in NYC. Several people took trains and booked rooms from as far away as Boston to be here (or at least I know of specifically two people who commuted up here on Sunday to be here for the "all hands"). I presume those people used their travel benefits to get here and back.
We were dismissed before the meeting even took place, and according to a coworker I became friends with (yes, despite my snarky comments in other threads, I *do* actually have coworkers I became friends with lol) who survived at least this round of layoffs, once the actual allhands commenced, the company first disclosed the layoffs, then announced being awarded a major contract with the very client the entire org had been working on overdrive to win for the last nine months. He had already been looking for a new job and got an offer last Friday, had been mulling it over, but told me once we were off the phone he was calling them up and accepting. He had three people reporting to him, and lost two. Even he had no idea it was coming until one of his nowformer subordinates asked him to come outside and told him they'd just been let go.
I knew going in to this startup that "it's a startup, anything can happen, just mind the gap". That's why I asked on numerous occasions and tried to get time with our CFO to ask about revenue and earnings; things that in my years at this place were never disclosed to the rank and file, I'm not a professional accountant or CPA by any means, but I did take a pair of corporate accounting classes in community college because I like the numbers (see my other rants about leaving the field and becoming a math teacher), and I was really curious to know how the financial health of the business was.
It wasn't so much a red flag as it was an orangishyellow that no one ever answered those questions, or that the CFO was distant but not necessarily cagey about my requests for his time; other indicators were good while interviewingthey had multiple fully integrated, paying customers (one of which being a former employer from years ago, which aided me in having strong product familiarity during the job interview), but I guess not enough to be sustainable.
Anyway. I'm gonna use the rest of the week to be a bum, might get out of the city and go hang with friends Pittsburgh, eat some hoagies and just vibe for a while. I've got assets and money stashed up to float pretty easily for a while, plus a bit of fun money so losing the job isn't world ending. Generalized anxiety because everything is going to shit worldwide, but that quickly faded into the backdrop of the generalized anxiety I always have because existentialism or something like that.
Thanks for reading. Pay the teachers.5 
Two big moments today:
1. Holy hell, how did I ever get on without a proper debugger? Was debugging some old code by eye (following along and keeping track mentally, of what the variables should be and what each step did). That didn't work because the code isn't intuitive. Tried the print() method, old reliable as it were. Kinda worked but didn't give me enough finegrain control.
Bit the bullet and installed Wing IDE for python. And bam, it hit me. How did I ever live without stepthrough, and breakpoints before now?
2. Remember that nonsieve prime generator I wrote a while back? (well maybe some of you do). The one that generated quasi lucas carmichael (QLC) numbers? Well thats what I managed to debug. I figured out why it wasn't working. Last time I released it, I included two core methods, genprimes() and nextPrime(). The first generates a list of primes accurately, up to some n, and only needs a small handful of QLC numbers filtered out after the fact (because the set of primes generated and the set of QLC numbers overlap. Well I think they call it an embedding, as in QLC is included in the series generated by genprimes, but not the converse, but I digress).
nextPrime() was supposed to take any arbitrary n above zero, and accurately return the nearest prime number above the argument. But for some reason when it started, it would return 2,3,5,6...but genprimes() would work fine for some reason.
So genprimes loops over an index, i, and tests it for primality. It begins by entering the loop, and doing "result = gffi(i)".
This calls into something a function that runs four tests on the argument passed to it. I won't go into detail here about what those are because I don't even remember how I came up with them (I'll make a separate post when the code is fully fixed).
If the number fails any of these tests then gffi would just return the value of i that was passed to it, unaltered. Otherwise, if it did pass all of them, it would return i+1.
And once back in genPrimes() we would check if the variable 'result' was greater than the loop index. And if it was, then it was either prime (comparatively plentiful) or a QLC number (comparatively rare)these two types and no others.
nextPrime() was only taking n, and didn't have this index to compare to, so the prior steps in genprimes were acting as a filter that nextPrime() didn't have, while internally gffi() was returning not only primes, and QLCs, but also plenty of composite numbers.
Now *why* that last step in genPrimes() was filtering out all the composites, idk.
But now that I understand whats going on I can fix it and hypothetically it should be possible to enter a positive n of any size, and without additional primality checks (such as is done with sieves, where you have to check off multiples of n), get the nearest prime numbers. Of course I'm not familiar enough with prime number generation to know if thats an achievement or worthwhile mentioning, so if anyone *is* familiar, and how something like that holds up compared to other linear generators (O(n)?), I'd be interested to hear about it.
I also am working on filtering out the intersection of the sets (QLC numbers), which I'm pretty sure I figured out how to incorporate into the prime generator itself.
I also think it may be possible to generator primes even faster, using the carmichael numbers or related setor even derive a function that maps one set of upperandlower bounds around a semiprime, and map those same bounds to carmichael numbers that act as the upper and lower bound numbers on the factors of a semiprime.
Meanwhile I'm also looking into testing the prime generator on a larger set of numbers (to make sure it doesn't fail at large values of n) and so I'm looking for more computing power if anyone has it on hand, or is willing to test it at sufficiently large bit lengths (512, 1024, etc).
Lastly, the earlier work I posted (linked below), I realized could be applied with ECM to greatly reduce the smallest factor of a large number.
If ECM, being one of the best methods available, only handles 5060 digit numbers, & your factors are 70+ digits, then being able to transform your semiprime product into another product tree thats nonsemiprime, with factors that ARE in range of ECM, and which *does* contain either of the original factors, means products that *were not* formally factorable by ECM, *could* be now.
That wouldn't have been possible though withput enormous help from many others such as hitko who took the time to explain the solution was a form of modular exponentiation, FastNop who contributed on other threads, Voxera who did as well, and support from Scor in particular, and many others.
Thank you all. And more to come.
Links mentioned (because DR wouldn't accept them as they were):
https://pastebin.com/MWechZj912 
I have been working for my current employer about 3 years now. When I first got to work I was asked by another employee to work on an editor for certain types of files. We will call this employee Ed. Because his name is Ed.
Ed is a verifiable genius, and a genuinely great guy to work with. He is amazing with hardware and math. Ed has a need, or shall I say fetish. He wants an editor for some our proprietary files called "Settings files". They are just xml. Nothing special.
However, I have always had other priorities. We actually had a tense moment when I had to tell Ed my boss doesn't want me to work on the editor. I had started looking into working on the editor when my boss said stop working on this file. So since then it had become a running joke between Ed and myself. Well, I think it is funny, Ed smiles, but I know he wants this editor bad. Our boss even suggested at one time that Ed write this editor. He looked into it, but "other priorities" trumped this effort.
Okay, so now it has been 3 years and we still don't have this editor. Then I had an epiphany. Since Ed wants this editor I found an idea for the name of this program. "Settings Editor" is just too mundane. I now think it should be called: "Mr. Edit". I also found that the library we use for most of our development has text to speech built in. So when the program starts I can have it say: "Hello, I am Mr. Edit, the talking Settings Editor". I have never wanted to write this program so badly before. Muahahahahaha!6 
I woke up screaming today. I had a nightmare where I ran git pull on the project I work on every day, and it had become a .NET project.6

Still on the primenumbers bender.
Had this idea that if there were subtle correlations between a sufficiently large set of identities and the digits of a prime number, the best way to find it would be to automate the search.
And thats just what I did.
I started with trace matrices.
I actually didn't expect much of it. I was hoping I'd at least get lucky with a few chance coincidences.
My first tests failed miserably. Eight percent here, 10% there. "I might as well just pick a number out of a hat!" I thought.
I scaled it way back and asked if it was possible to predict *just* the first digit of either of the prime factors.
That also failed. Prediction rates were low still. Like 0.080.15.
So I automated *that*.
After a couple days of onandoff again semiautomated searching I stumbled on it.
[1144, 827, 326, 1184, 1, 1, 1, 1]
That little sequence is a series of identities representing different values derived from a randomly generated product.
Each slots into a trace matrice. The results of which predict the first digit of one of our factors, with a 83.2% accuracy even after 10k runs, and rising higher with the number of trials.
It's not much, but I was kind of proud of it.
I'm pushing for finding 90%+ now.
Some improvements include using a different sort of operation to generate results. Or logging all results and finding the digit within each result thats *most* likely to predict our targets, across all results. (right now I just take the digit in the ones column, which works but is an arbitrary decision on my part).
Theres also the fact that it's trivial to correctly guess the digit 25% of the time, simply by guessing 1, 3, 7, or 9, because all primes, except for 2, end in one of these four.
I have also yet to find a trace with a specific bias for predicting either the smaller of two unique factors *or* the larger. But I haven't really looked for one either.
I still need to write a generate that takes specific traces, and lets me mutate some of the values, to push them towards certain 'fitness' levels.
This would be useful not just for very high predictions, but to find traces with very *low* predictions.
Why? Because it would actually allow for the *elimination* of possible digits, much like sudoku, from a given place value in a predicted factor.
I don't know if any of this will even end up working past the first digit. But splitting the odds, between the two unique factors of a prime product, and getting 40+% chance of guessing correctly, isn't too bad I think for a total amateur.
Far cry from a couple years ago claiming I broke prime factorization. People still haven't forgiven me for that, lol.6 
God I love being able to use MathJax on GitHub, despite it being quite a pain to get it perfect.
https://github.com/OpenlyEducated/...
( Manually adjusted the spacing for readability~ )
( Still needs color though.. )
Also the bug that broke all inline mathjax for a week wasn't exactly helpful..1 
Music. Music teaches you numbers, creativity, patterns, structure, and basically primes your brain for math and creativity in that space. In addition, it teaches you how to think both within a structure and outside the box, as well as the importance of repetition, memorization, and learning a new language.
Music really was my second language, and the ability to read/write it fluently is a skill that takes a long time to master. I really believe that it increases your brain plasticity so much.4 
I love job posts made by HR cronies:
"A majority of your time will be enabling development in our React Native app with a large amount of time dedicated to the rest of our stack."
So, if my math is correct... a majority is greater than 50%... but... "a large amount of time" meaning the rest?
Another job post asking for the typical 10x dev
BuT wHy CaNt We FiNd AnYoNe?!?!?! ThErEs NoT eNoUgH gOoD heLP tHeSe DaYs!!!2 
Back from the dead with more vaguelyobscure technical bullshit
Working on a chatbot for my BSCS. Almost done with college, so the assignment is to make a bot that recommends you a CS career. Cool.
I get through making a joint personality and skillinterest quiz that gives you number grades on different spectra. So far, so good. But this project has to be done entirely in pandorabots' online editor. So no scripting. Zero scripting. 100% markup language. That means to even do math, you need to copy a standard library off GitHub.
I mean, that's fine and all, but the syntax is just atrocious, because everything in AIML is input>response. If you ask the bot "what is 5+5?" you must have it go:
 recognize pattern WHAT IS * + *
> redirect > XADD * XS *
> do math > recurse result
> 10
uncomfy. Plus, variables can only be accessed through <get> and <set> tags. But mangeable.
So here's where the story becomes a rant.
In the standard docs, there's all these math functions, and they work. There's also logic.
And then there's this fucker
XIF [ * ] XS [ * ]
Which has no documentation and just doesn't work. No idea what the brackets mean. Tried putting in TRUE, tried putting in true math statements (5 XEQ 5), tried putting in recursion tags to trick it, tried everything. It just ignores it.
There is not a single comment, stackOverflow post, or youtube video that even acknowledges the existence of this thing.
So unless I want to convert the entire logic of my program into nested SWITCH statements with the <condition> tag, I'm just fucked.
The icing on the cake is, I go to tech support on Pandorabots to ask for help with this. What do they have except a chatbot to cheerfully tell me that no humans are around to help me right now?
gonna have to build an entire fuckin turing machine in markup tags to calculate whether x = 3
(:1 
Dont you just love spending like 2 hours playing around with a library and doing some math, on real pen and paper, only to find out the library had a function for what you need already there and available
:)3 
I just realized that college professors aren't teachers, they just did "really good" in their field of study.
Why does the world allow someone that's not a teacher to teach just because he/she has a PhD.
A person should be taught how to teach before they step in front of that whiteboard and try to convey knowledge.
Edit: (Especially when its math/really technical stuff)6 
Lost my temper at one of our volunteer moderators the other day. We had to do a test using live data, our sysadmin warned him, but not far enough in advance and not really by the right channels. So that was on us. sorry not sorry. But so then he didn't believe us. He must be a geek too cuz he responded with some stupid math problem for me to solve, as if that would prove we work here and aren't hackers or scammers. I replied "how about if i just kick you out of your own group and delete your account, would that convince you?" And so I did. Asshole. Of course I had to apologize later and get a lecture from the boss, but it was kinda worth it.1

One day I had a thought. (Dangerous, I know.) What if I could build a machine that took me up into the air and decoupled my inertia from the rotation of the Earth. So I would cease to move in sync with the Earth's rotation. Then I thought this could be a way to travel around the Earth. I wanted to know how long it would take to go around the Earth. So I got the circumference of the Earth and divided it by the surface speed of the Earth. I was really excited at this point.
40075 km ÷ 1670 km/hr = 23.997 hours
Oh ... yeah ... 24 hours. I guess the math checks out.
And this is why we need dev ducks.4 
In the 90s most people had touched grass, but few touched a computer.
In the 2090s most people will have touched a computer, but not grass.
But at least we'll have fully sentient dildos armed with laser guns to mildly stimulate our mandatory attached cyberclits, or alternatively annihilate thought criminals.
In other news my prime generator has exhaustively been checked against, all primes from 5 to 1 million. I used millerrabin with k=40 to confirm the results.
The set the generator creates is the join of the quasilucas carmichael numbers, the carmichael numbers, and the primes. So after I generated a number I just had to treat those numbers as 'pollutants' and filter them out, which was dead simple.
Whats left after filtering, is strictly the primes.
I also tested it randomly on 5055 bit primes, and it always returned true, but that range hasn't been fully tested so far because it takes 912 seconds per number at that point.
I was expecting maybe a few failures by my generator. So what I did was I wrote a function, genMillerTest(), and all it does is take some number n, returns the next prime after it (using my functions nextPrime() and isPrime()), and then tests it against millerrabin. If miller returns false, then I add the result to a list. And then I check *those* results by hand (because miller can occasionally return false positives, though I'm not familiar enough with the math to know how often).
Well, imagine my surprise when I had zero false positives.
Which means either my code is generating the same exact set as miller (under some very large value of n), or the chance of miller (at k=40 tests) returning a false positive is vanishingly small.
My next steps should be to parallelize the checking process, and set up my other desktop to run those tests continuously.
Concurrently I should work on figuring out why my slowest primality tests (theres six of them, though I think I can eliminate two) are so slow and if I can better estimate or derive a pattern that allows faster results by better initialization of the variables used by these tests.
I already wrote some cases to output which tests most frequently succeeded (if any of them pass, then the number isn't prime), and therefore could cut short the primality test of a number. I rewrote the function to put those tests in order from most likely to least likely.
I'm also thinking that there may be some clues for faster computation in other bases, or perhaps in binary, or inspecting the patterns of values in the natural logs of nonprimes versus primes. Or even looking into the *execution* time of numbers that successfully pass as prime versus ones that don't. Theres a bevy of possible approaches.
The entire process for the first 1_000_000 numbers, ran 1621.28 seconds, or just shy of a tenth of a second per test but I'm sure thats biased toward the head of the list.
If theres any other approach or ideas I may be overlooking, I wouldn't know where to begin.16 
While I was exploring multiplication tables I stumbled on something cool.
Take any power of 2 on the multiplication chart.
Now look at the number in the bottom left adjacent box.
The difference of these two numbers will always be a Mersenne number.
Go ahead. Starting on the 2's column of a multiplication table, look in the bottom left of each power of 2 and get the difference.
22 = 0
43= 1
85 = 3
169=7
3217=15
etc.
While the online journal of integer sequences lists a lot of forumlas, I just wrote what came to mind (I'm sure its already known):
((2**i)(((2**i)/2)+1))
The interesting thing about this is it generates not only the Mersenne numbers, but if you run i *backwards* it generates *additional* numbers.
So its a superset of mersenne numbers.
at i = 0 we get 0.5
i=1 > 0.75
i=2 > 0.875
i=3 > 0.9375
i=4 > 0.96875
And while this sequence is *not* mersenne numbers, mersenne numbers *are* in this set.
Just a curious discovery is all.11 
Question  is this meaningful or is this retarded?
if
2*3 = 6
2*2 = 4
2*1 = 2
2*0 = 0
2*1 = 2
then why doesnt this work?
6/3 = 2
6/2 = 3
6/1 = 6
6/0 = 0
6/1 = 6
if n/0 is forbidden and 1/n returns the inverse of n, why shouldn't zero be its own inverse?
If we're talking "0" as in an infinitely precise definition of zero, then 1/n (where n is arbitrarily close to 0), then the result is an arbitrarily large answer, close to infinite, because any floating point number beneath zero (like an infinitely precise approximation of zero) when inverted, produces a number equal to or greater than 1.
If the multiplicative identity, 1, covers the entire set of integers, then why shouldn't division by zero be the inverse of the multiplicative identity, excluding the entire set? It ONLY returns 0, while anything n*1 ONLY returns n.
This puts even the multiplicative identity in the set covered by its inverse.
Ergo, division by zero produces either 0 or infinity. When theres an infinity in an formula, it sometimes indicates theres been
some misunderstanding or the system isn't fully understood. The simpler approach here would be to say therefore the answer is
not infinity, but zero. Now 'simpler' doesn't always mean "correct", only more elegant.
But if we represent the result of a division as BOTH an integer and mantissa
component, e.x
1.234567 or 0.1234567,
i.e. a float, we can say the integer component is the quotient, and the mantissa
is the remainder.
Logically it makes sense then that division by zero is equivalent to taking the numerator, and leaving it "undistributed".
I.e. shunting it to the remainder, and leaving the quotient as zero.
If we treat this as equivalent of an inversion, we can effectively represent the quotient from denominators of n/0 as 1/n
Meaning even 1/0 has a representation, it just happens to be 0.000...
Therefore
(n * (n/0)) = 1
the multiplicative identity
because
(n* (n/0)) == (n * ( 1/n ))
People who math. Is this a yea or nay in your book?25 
Besides firefox and emacs there is also Linux, the library emacs uses to interact with the computer hardware

My personal top 4:
good tea,
good booze,
time with gf,
time with friends,
Just clears my head, but doing any of my other hobbies can really help because it just gets me in a different headspace 
Maybe I'm severely misunderstanding set theory. Hear me out though.
Let f equal the set of all fibonacci numbers, and p equal the set of all primes.
If the density of primes is a function of the number of *multiples* of all primes under n,
then the *number of primes* or density should shrink as n increases, at an ever increasing rate
greater than the density of the number of fibonacci numbers below n.
That means as n grows, the relative density of f to p should grow as well.
At sufficiently large n, the density of p is zero (prime number theorem), not just absolutely, but relative to f as well. The density of f is therefore an upper limit of the density of p.
And the density of p given some sufficiently large n, is therefore also a lower limit on the density of f.
And that therefore the density of p must also be the upper limit on the density of the subset of primes that are Fibonacci numbers.
WHICH MEANS at sufficiently large values of n, there are either NO Fibonacci primes (the functions diverge), and therefore the set of Fibonacci primes is *finite*, OR the density of primes given n in the prime number theorem
*never* truly reaches zero, meaning the primes are in fact infinite.
Proving the Fibonacci primes are infinite, therefore would prove that the prime number line ends (fat chance). While proving the primes are infinite, proves the Fibonacci primes are finite in quantity.
And because the number of primes has been proven time and again to be infinite, as far back as 300BC,the Fibonacci primes MUST be finite.
QED.
If I've made a mistake, I'd like to know.10 
Reasons to NOT be a dev sounds rather negative so I'd like to propose 3 things that you need to BE a dev as to frame it in a positive light:
 When a problem peaks your interest you want to solve it, you may even be obsessed by it.
 You enjoy learning, not necessarily enjoy school, just enjoy learning new things (even better if it's by your own means)
 Failure may get you down, but you learn and don't give up until you have exhausted all paths to success.
You may need other skills like math, logic and reasoning abilities, being able to handle deadlines, attention to detail, and cope with stress. I've seen people being crap at all of those and if they have the former 3 they, in time, will hone the others enough to make them a productive dev.
No need to be a 996 code monkey willing to be squeezed by Big Corp for massive profits and a low salary or a 1337 purist coder that only focuses on the crafting side of developing software. That may make you a great coder but not a well rounded developer or individual. Remember, you program machines but you are NOT one.10 
If what ur teaching isn’t practical, then you’re just wasting time. I have a mathematics professor. All he does is come to class and skips through slides. I can do that myself yk, if I wanted to skip through slides I wouldn’t come to school. I need you to go on the board and do math, not skip through fucking slides, ur destroying the teaching culture and fucking with my learning process.2

Mathematics feels like a giant old undocumented codebase in that, yes you could read the comments of each function, you would rather have a nice complete, well formatted docs page that in human terms explains how things work together, why they are here and where they came from.13

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Is an interesting read.
May have applications of measuring the randomness of RNGs, as deviation from Viswanath's constant3 
Computer science vs software engineering?
Software engineering is all about people. You have to communicate with the business, realizing their needs, figuring out their processes, optimizing them, all this before the first line of code is written. Then, you have to manage your direct reports, and if you have none, write code with people in mind, people who will read it after you. As they say, code is for people, not for computers. Then, you have to improve the app listening to users, again, people.
I can’t assign a software engineer a role higher than middle if they’re bad with people.
If you wanna do cool stuff with computers and be a misanthrope, do computer science! It’s a very prestigious field where you are left alone with scary math and fundamental concepts. If you’re successful there, you’ll have a mad asocial scientist card, and no one will ever insist to you that people is important. They will just accept that they shouldn’t annoy you, and you are “allowed” to yell at them because you’re “special” and a “genius”. You can hate them 24/7.2 
fuck me.
it's monday and to start in a new project I'm reading a paper my boss once wrote.
It's the worst I ever seen  stop using so much smart words and stop introducing fuckin smart math notations everywhere!!!
That fucker reads like a pretentious science lecture an my poor simple village brain doesn't like it6 
can we agree that T is a dumb variable name?
I mean I totally know what it means in that instance, but why do people keep writing math stuff like they'd skribble it on paper?8 
I've just finished installing Ubuntu Unity 22.04 on a new SSD installed on my wife's computer; it's so relaxing the fresh air of a new Linux distribution installed.3

For any product of two nontrivial primes, it is *always* possible to get the quotient of its factors b/a derived solely from the product of those factors, *without* first factoring the product (p).
Fight me.3 
It’s so unbelievable how dumb some people are  I’m on the side of adding logic to primary school programs before they start math.2

While the topic is a bit divisive, the statistical technique highlighted in this post is really cool:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/...2 
Started documenting on how to use ＬａＴｅＸ ( MathJax ) in Ｍａｒｋｄｏｗｎ.
https://github.com/MarkedDown/Math
Let me know if you have a topic that you would like to be documented sooner than others~
Image shows an example usage
from a project I'm working on:
https://github.com/OpenlyEducated/... 
If you really like math or theory, I think a degree or a few is the way to go. Plus, you can get a head start in your career that way. However, I think I would have not gone to college in hindsight and selfstudied since I am regretting the career field now.1

Hey fellow nerds, I have a math question :)
I need to split a pile of coins (1s, 2s, 5s, 10s and so on) into a number of piles, let's say four, so that each pile has the same amount of money, but not necessarily the same amount of coins. Does anybody know of such an algorithm?7 
Question: For those of you who went math mode, did you ever look back? Was your future grim, happy, or does that even matter at all?7

So I made a couple slight modifications to the formula in the previous post and got some pretty cool results.
The original post is here:
https://devrant.com/rants/5632235/...
The default transformation from p, to the new product (call it p2) leads to *very* large products (even for products of the first 100 primes).
Take for example
a = 6229, b = 10477, p = a*b = 65261233
While the new product the formula generates, has a factor tree that contains our factor (a), the product is huge.
How huge?
6489397687944607231601420206388875594346703505936926682969449167115933666916914363806993605...
and
So huge I put the whole number in a pastebin here:
https://pastebin.com/1bC5kqGH
Now, that number DOES contain our example factor 6229. I demonstrated that in the prior post.
But first, it's huge, 2972 digits long, and second, many of its factors are huge too.
Right from the get go I had hunch, and did (p2 mod p) and the result was surprisingly small, much closer to the original product. Then just to see what happens I subtracted this result from the original product.
The modification looks like this:
(p(((abs(((((p)(9**i)9)+1))((((9**i)(p)9)2)))p+1)p)%p))
The result is '49856916'
Thats within the ballpark of our original product.
And then I factored it.
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 23, 29, 46, 58, 69, 87, 92, 116, 138, 174, 276, 348, 667, 1334, 2001, 2668, 4002, 6229, 8004, 12458, 18687, 24916, 37374, 74748, 143267, 180641, 286534, 361282, 429801, 541923, 573068, 722564, 859602, 1083846, 1719204, 2167692, 4154743, 8309486, 12464229, 16618972, 24928458, 49856916
Well damn. It's not asmooth or bsmooth (where 'smoothness' is defined as 'all factors are beneath some number n')
but this is far more approachable than just factoring the original product.
It still requires a value of i equal to
i = floor(a/2)
But the results are actually factorable now if this works for other products.
I rewrote the script and tested on a couple million products and added decimal support, and I'm happy to report it works.
Script is posted here if you want to test it yourself:
https://pastebin.com/RNu1iiQ8
What I'll do next is probably add some basic factorization of trivial primes
(say the first 100), and then figure out the average number of factors in each derived product.
I'm also still working on getting to values of i < a/2, but only having sporadic success.
It also means *very* large numbers (either a subset of them or universally) with *lots* of factors may be reducible to unique products with just two nontrivial factors, but thats a big question mark for now.
@scor if you want to take a look.5 
It should be possible to prove the collatz conjecture by mapping the unit digit transitions between numbers, namely into a finite state machine. From there we could use predicates and quanitifiers to prove, by process of exclusion, that for any given combination of 10s digit and 1s digit, no number can transition to anything but whats specified in the state machine assuming that number equals x in x3+1 or x/2
Ipso facto, a series of equations proving by process of elimination, that state machines transitions are the only allowable ones, would prove the collatz conjecture by proving the fsm is a valid representation for any given integer N.
I'm actually working on it now but I don't know enough about modular arithmetic and predicate logic to write a proof. I just have the state diagrams on some dot matrix paper at the moment.
If anyone wants to beat me to it, feel free.
So for example any number ending in 13, will, after x3+1, end in 40.
Any number ending in 40 will end in 20. Any number ending in 20 will end in 10, which will end in 5 as the unit digit.
It's easier to prove in the single digit case, and the finite state machine for that is already written, at least on paper.
I'll post pictures when I get a chance.7 
https://i.postimg.cc/4ycRFNZf/...
The factorization shit I'm always ranting about? I decided for once to explain it visually in this handy dandy little infographic.
We're essentially transforming the product from an unsmooth set of potential factors in its factor tree, to a factorization tree that guarantees first that the set of potential factors are all 2, 3, 5, and a or b of p, and second, that all the factors are *smooth integers* of a or b.
This is basically what Adi Shamir was trying to do with TWINKLE and TWIRL, despite checking a hundred thousand+ potential primes.
I did it in four.7 
Heres a fairly useless but interesting tidbit:
if i = n
then
r = (abs(((((p)(9**i)9)+1))((((9**i)(p)9)2)))p+1+1)
then r%a will (almost*) always return 0. when n = floor(a/2) for the lowest nontrivial factor of a two factor product.
Thats not really the interesting bit though. The interesting bit is the result of r will always be some product with a *larger* factor tree that includes the factor A of p, but not p's other larger factor, B.
So, useless from what I can see. But its an interesting function on its own, simply because of what it does.
I wrote a script to test it. For all twofactor products of the first 1000 primes, (with no repeating combinations, so if we calculated say, 23*31, we skip 31*23), only 3262 products failed this little formula, out of half a million.
All others reliably returned 0 for the following..
~~~
i = floor(a/2)
r = (abs(((((p)(9**i)9)+1))((((9**i)(p)9)2)))p+1+1)
r%a
~~~
The distribution of failures was *very* early on in the set of factors, and once fixed at the value of 3262, stopped increasing for the rest of the run.
I didn't calculate if some primes were more likely to cause a product to fail or not. Nor the factor trees, nor if the factor trees had any factors in common between products, or anything of that nature.
All in all I count this as a worthwhile experiment.
If you want to run the code yourself, I posted it to pastebin here:
https://pastebin.com/Q4LFKBjB
edit:
Tried wolfram alpha just to see what it says, but apparently not much. Wish it could tell me more.41 
This is some cool shit:
https://arstechnica.com/information...
Now I want to learn how to AI at least enough to understand what they are doing.
People worried about AI replacing programmers when it was the math people software has been replacing.6 
I try not to distract myself with more pleasurable things until I've got everything done. For example, I don't watch YouTube between my tasks, don't keep checking my cellphone every time, play chess, etc.4

floating point numbers are workarounds for infinite problems people didn’t find solution yet
if you eat a cake there is no cake, same if you grab a piece of cake, there is no 3/4 cake left there is something else yet to simplify the meaning of the world so we can communicate cause we’re all dumb fucks who can’t remember more than 20000 words we named different things as same things but in less amount, floating point numbers were a biggest step towards modern world we even don’t remember it
we use infinity everyday yet we don’t know infinite, we only partially know concept of null
you say piece of cake but piece is not measurement  piece is infinite subjective amount of something
everything that is subjective is infinite, like you say a sentence it have infinite number of meanings, you publish a photo or draw a paining there are infinite number of interpretations
you can say there is no cake but isn’t it ? you just said cake so your mind want to materialize something you already know and since you know the cake word there is a cake cause it’s infinite once created
if you think really hard and try to get that feeling, the taste of your last delicious cake you can almost feel it on your tongue cause you’re connected to every cake taste you ate
someone created cake and once people know what cake is it’s infinite in that collection, but what if no one created cake or everyone that remember how cake looks like died, everything what’s cake made of extinct ? does it exist or is it null ? that’s determinism and entropy problem we don’t understand, we don’t understand past and future cause we don’t understand infinity and null, we just replaced it with time
there is no time and you can have a couple of minutes break are best explanations of how null and infinite works in a concept of time
so if you want to change the world, find another thing that explains infinity and null and you will push our civilization forward, you don’t need to know any physics or math, you just need to observe the world and spot patterns10 
I feel like the world, and my life has been so crazy lately that I needed something reassuring.
```ruby
def test_true_is_true
assert_equal true, true
end
```2 
I fucking hate math. Today tried to make 2 unequal rectangles align along 1 axis. This isn't that hard when they aren't rotated but it fucking when they are rotated. I know I have to use geometry to get them aligned and I got it somewat working but as the gap is bigger so is the drift in which it over compensates to the other side and I have no fucking clue how to fix this 😩.
The worst thing is tomorrow I have to be at this again1 
Take this combo:
English (or any spoken language) + Mathematics
Is this like:
HTML + Javascript
Yes, I went there. I compared Mathematics to Javascript.4 
I want to run a simulation like rolling a dice N times and find out what's the distribution/probability of getting certain SUMs after the rolls.
However the dice is more likely to land on a lower number, and/or depends on what the number it landed on previously.
Stats wise I think ideally I want to be able to just input the avg, standard deviation, and skewness into a Random class constructor, and then ask it for N "random" numbers.6 
I keep having this recurring idea that I can fill in the gaps in my education by writing video games that allow me to explore those topics. This would force me to learn the subject well enough to share it with other people. So it would not be just surface level.
I keep thinking of a program that explores and visualizes math topics and programming topics. I would really like to have a program that allows me to visualize memory cells for algorithm exploration. Or a really nice graphing calculator in the computer that allows me to view multiple graphs to compare and contrast equations.
What holds me back is both math and CS are huge topics. I feel like any kind of playground would only cover a small subset. Ideally whatever I make should be extendable over time to add content and topics. It would need to be somewhat fun as well.
I can imagine an AI training program where you help your character navigate a room of hazards or die. This could be one such fun challenge.1 
Before i get my degree i have to write my finishing thesis on blockchain topic, has to include something about using math from linear algebra or math analysis that is applied to blockchain, can anyone give me links of similar examples of finishing thesis of this for inspiration?9