What specifically constitutes a hole is somewhat ambiguous, but if you pull on the thread a bit, you'll probably agree that it's a topological quality and that homotopy groups and homology are good candidates. The most grounded way to approach the topic is with simplicial homology.
kogasa
joined 2 years ago
I don't squish bread to make sure it isn't stale. I squish it because it's fun to squish
Make sure to squish it a bit more before you repost it. It helps keeps the memes fresh
Yeah, it's a matter of convention rather than opinion really, but among US academia the convention is to exclude 0 from the naturals. I think in France they include it.
You can imagine tracing a path along a Klein bottle to see that it only has one side. To get more precise than that requires some topological context. If you slice it down the middle it turns into two Möbius strips and an orientation of the Klein bottle would induce an orientation of the strips, which are non-orientable. Alternately it has zero top integer homology, which you can get from looking at a triangulation. The orientable double cover of a Klein bottle is a torus, which is connected (if it were orientable, the double cover would be two disconnected Klein bottles).
There was the Margaritaville episode. I think that said... something... about capitalism and economics.
But I think the political commentary got a lot less pointed around the time hindsight kicked in on the climate change episodes. Kinda felt like the recurring theme was "everyone is an idiot, even us." Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich felt a bit enlightened centristy.
Hey, I love Community
Seasons 1 and 3 are also missing 1 or 2 episodes each because a guest star's royalty agreement renegotiation fell through
I understand those are food words but I'm incapable of picturing those things in combination as a food item
Not necessarily do logic, but mimic it, like it can mimic coherent writing and basic conversation despite only being a statistical token muncher. The hope is that there's sufficient information in the syntax to model the semantics, in which case a sufficiently complex and well-trained model of the syntax is also an effective model of the semantics. This apparently holds up well for general language tasks, meaning "what we mean" is well-modeled by "how we say it." It's plausible, at face value, that rigorous argumentation is also a good candidate, which would give language models some way of mimicking logic by talking through a problem. It's just not very good in practice right now. Maybe a better language model could do better, maybe not for a reasonable cost.