saigot

joined 2 years ago
[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 5 hours ago

That is a fair criticism that I am too lazy to work out the details of ๐Ÿ˜Š.

[โ€“] [email protected] 12 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Here is my attempt to eli5, a metric is a formalized/generalized way to describe distance. Smart people thought about what makes distance distance and basically made a set of rules. Distance is a function where the distance between a point and itself is 0 (and only 0 in that case), is always positive, is the same distance whether you are coming or going and that going to a place and then another place has at least as much distance as just going to the last place (which is kind of the same as saying the shortest path between 2 points is a straight line).

You can see how these rules apply to point in 3d(or 2d) space and our intuitive understanding of distance between them. For example If a store is 2km going to a bank then the store is at least 2km but maybe more and if its 2km from home to the store its also 2km from the store to home. This might seem obvious, and it is for 3d space, but we can take it and apply it to all kinds of things.

This question is intentionally convoluted, but one way of conceptualizing it is: ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ‡๐ŸŒ are each functions that takes one value and spits out another. If you would graph this function it makes a line. ๐ŸŠ takes 2 lines and tells us how far apart they are, you can think about many ways to compare how far apart 2 line are, but the one given to us is to just take the one where the difference between the heights of the lines is greatest. For an example lets say ๐ŸŽ is the price of eggs and ๐Ÿ‡ is the price of organic eggs then ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐Ÿ‡) would give us the biggest difference in price there has ever been between them.

Our task in the problem is to prove that that idea of distance given to us follows the same rules as our intuitive definition of distance.

E: I originally misread the values the functions took as 2 dimensional coordinates, but it is really just 1 dimensional data, so I changed the metaphor.

[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

You can read the plan, https://liberal.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/292/2025/04/Mark-Carneys-Liberals-release-plan-to-fight-crime-protect-Canadians-and-build-safer-communities.pdf

There's some good and some bad imo.

I'm indifferent to slightly tightening gun regulations,

I think more money for cyber crimes is a good idea and more money for equipment to secure the border is necessary as the us unravels. More early retirement isn't something I will complain about and will win a lot of votes amoung those effected. I think the organized car theft is something worthwhile to address.

I like criminalizing unconsenual deepfake porn and becoming stricter on revenge porn.

Increasing funding to Building Safer Communities Fund sounds nice but might just be lip service.

I don't like making bail more difficult, but con leaning voters will love it. I don't like most of the tougher sentencing but it is a more reasonable version of pp's 3 strikes horribleness that undercuts him while in practise not changing things that much.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

It should be ||๐ŸŽ(x) -๐ŸŒ(x)| +|๐ŸŒ(x) - ๐Ÿ‡(x)|| >=|๐ŸŽ(x) -๐ŸŒ(x) +๐ŸŒ(x) - ๐Ÿ‡(x)| = |๐ŸŽ(x) - ๐Ÿ‡(x)| I missed the abs that I added in the previous step.

let me make the variables less annoying:

||x-y|+|y-z|| >= |x-y+y-z| = |x-z| we are getting rid of the abs around |x-y| and |y-z| so the 2 y's can cancel out. We can do this because |x-y| >= x-y because |q| >= q

[โ€“] [email protected] 64 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (12 children)

It's been a while but here we go:

for orange to be a metric 4 conditions must be met:

  1. ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐ŸŽ) = 0

proofsince ๐ŸŽ(x) - ๐ŸŽ(x) will always be 0 for any ๐ŸŽ and any x in domain

  1. ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐ŸŒ) > 0 if ๐ŸŽ != ๐ŸŒ.

proof

|๐ŸŽ(x) - ๐ŸŒ(x)| >= 0 by definition, so ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐ŸŒ) must be >= 0. we only have to prove that:

๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐ŸŒ) = 0 -> ๐ŸŽ=๐ŸŒ

Consider the contrapositive: ๐ŸŽ!=๐ŸŒ -> ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐ŸŒ) != 0

since ๐ŸŽ!=๐ŸŒ โˆƒx s.t ๐ŸŽ(x) != ๐ŸŒ(x)

but then |๐ŸŽ(x) - ๐ŸŒ(x)| > 0

thus ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐ŸŒ) > 0

thus ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐ŸŒ) = 0 -> ๐ŸŽ=๐ŸŒ

  1. ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐ŸŒ) = ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŒ,๐ŸŽ)

proof|๐ŸŽ(x) - ๐ŸŒ(x)| = |-1(-๐ŸŽ(x) + ๐ŸŒ(x))|

|-1(-๐ŸŽ(x) + ๐ŸŒ(x))| = |-1(๐ŸŒ(x) - ๐ŸŽ(x))|

|-1(๐ŸŒ(x) - ๐ŸŽ(x))| = |๐ŸŒ(x) - ๐ŸŽ(x)| since |-q| =|q|

so for any x |๐ŸŽ(x) - ๐ŸŒ(x)| = |๐ŸŒ(x) - ๐ŸŽ(x)|

which means ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐ŸŒ) = ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŒ,๐ŸŽ)

  1. The Triangle Inequality:๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐Ÿ‡) <= ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐ŸŒ) + ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŒ, ๐Ÿ‡)

proof

let x be the element in [a,b] s.t |๐ŸŽ(x) - ๐Ÿ‡(x)| is maximized

let y be the element in [a,b] s.t |๐ŸŽ(y) - ๐ŸŒ(y)| is maximized

let z be the element in [a,b] s.t |๐ŸŒ(z) - ๐Ÿ‡(z)| is maximized

๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐Ÿ‡) <=๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŽ,๐ŸŒ) + ๐ŸŠ(๐ŸŒ, ๐Ÿ‡) is equivalent to

|๐ŸŽ(y) -๐ŸŒ(y)| +|๐ŸŒ(z) - ๐Ÿ‡(z)| >= |๐ŸŽ(x) - ๐Ÿ‡(x)|

Let's start with the following (obvious) inequality:

|๐ŸŽ(y) -๐ŸŒ(y)| +|๐ŸŒ(z) - ๐Ÿ‡(z)| >= |๐ŸŽ(y) -๐ŸŒ(y)| +|๐ŸŒ(z) - ๐Ÿ‡(z)|

|๐ŸŽ(y) -๐ŸŒ(y)| +|๐ŸŒ(z) - ๐Ÿ‡(z)| >= |๐ŸŽ(x) -๐ŸŒ(x)| +|๐ŸŒ(z) - ๐Ÿ‡(z)| since |๐ŸŽ(y) - ๐ŸŒ(y)| is maximized

|๐ŸŽ(x) -๐ŸŒ(x)| +|๐ŸŒ(z) - ๐Ÿ‡(z)| >= |๐ŸŽ(x) -๐ŸŒ(x)| +|๐ŸŒ(x) - ๐Ÿ‡(x)| since |๐ŸŒ(z) - ๐Ÿ‡(z)| is maximized

|๐ŸŽ(x) -๐ŸŒ(x)| +|๐ŸŒ(z) - ๐Ÿ‡(z)| >= ||๐ŸŽ(x) -๐ŸŒ(x)| +|๐ŸŒ(x) - ๐Ÿ‡(x)|| since |q| + |p| >= 0 so |q| + |p| = ||q| +|p||

||๐ŸŽ(x) -๐ŸŒ(x)| +|๐ŸŒ(x) - ๐Ÿ‡(x)|| >=|๐ŸŽ(x) -๐ŸŒ(x) +๐ŸŒ(x) - ๐Ÿ‡(x)| = |๐ŸŽ(x) - ๐Ÿ‡(x)| since |q| >= q forall q

therefore |๐ŸŽ(y) -๐ŸŒ(y)| +|๐ŸŒ(z) - ๐Ÿ‡(z)| >= |๐ŸŽ(x) - ๐Ÿ‡(x)|

since all 4 conditions are satisfied the ๐ŸŠ is metric!

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago

And just because people keep hammering screws doesn't mean hammers aren't useful.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago

Yeah and no one federates with them for a reason, despite the fact it would about 500x the userbase.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Corporate buy in, just look at bluesky. I don't want lemmy to grow.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

I think hank green has a pretty nuanced take on the subject:

https://youtu.be/Ar0zgedLyTw

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It sounds like you do agree with my last statement, I said if x then y. You said not x so not y.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I think the runaway success of astrobot for the PS5 has got execs watering at the mouth. If It's as good as astrobot then I don't think 10bucks is all that crazy either.

[โ€“] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This comment is going to piss just about everyone off, but tik tok was actually amazing for the couple hours America was banned. That's not an endorsement of tik tok just an observation.

 
0
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
 
view more: next โ€บ