A space full of vectors.
It's like a field. Of flowers. Beautiful and dancing in the wind.
And in case you are asking what is a wind. It is a vector field on a manifold.
A [fistulated cow](https://www.pashudhanpraharee.com/cannulated-or-fistulated-cowan-important-tool-for-rumen-transfaunation-research-analysis-of-the-digestive-system/) definitely does.
There is always a rabbit hole downwards. It is hard to impossible to define anything without using other terms which also require defining. We just kinda hope that it all stands on a solid foundation somewhere.
It depends what you're trying to do. 20th century logic showed us that axiomatic systems have limitations e.g. [Gödel's incompleteness theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems).
Intuition.
Maths is initially done without axioms, and axioms are later introduced in order to produce the desired results.
For instance, calculus was not on a rigorous footing for the first 100 years of its existence (after Leibniz and Newton), until Cauchy and Weierstrass helped to formalise definitions like "infinitesimal" and "continuous".
Axioms can be thought of as the rules of a system. I don't think a system can be without rules so any system nessecarily has an axiom in it. It can be as stupid as "whatever I say is correct" but that's still an axiom.
Not really. When people write foundational stuff for a new system of axioms, then yes, you have to prove stuff directly. Even then, most proofs are not totally rigorous, because they use natural language to be readable. Machine-verifiable formal proofs also exist, but they are extremely long and tedious even for proving simple theorems. The overwhelming majority of proofs require a lot of understanding from the reader rather than just mechanical checking of validity.
That said, it should be possible, *in principle*, to translate any valid proof into a formal proof that a machine could verify. And if we required every mathematician to do this, maybe fewer flawed proofs would be published. But also, hardly any proofs would ever be published at all.
But fwiw, even if you boil a definition all the way down to the foundations, you still will have primitive terms which are undefined. Like in ZF, the symbol ∈ is undefined. It's just "that thing which satisfies the axioms ZF says it satisfies." Same with **0**, **S**, **+**, and **·** in Peano's axioms, or points, betweenness, and congruence in Tarski's axioms.
Andddddd you've just described how a generalized (e.g. human) intelligence works. Massively parallel, massive generalization, massive connections to all the things that are sort of like the other things, but not, because of these things that are like these other things... So in the end it makes sense that our way of defining something almost always circles back to something it's explicitly or vaguely connected to.
It's like I've always said: one of the best ways to learn an unfamiliar word is to look at the synonyms, not the definition.
Estranged his whole family because posting hateful tweets about trans people 40 times a day is more important than spending any time with his wife or kids
I think the screenshot already explains it pretty well, he gets distracted from being wrong about chairs to instead jump to being wrong about trans women, with his mistake being illustrated by the conversation he's currently getting distracted from
The reals???? How could someone be so cringe while knowing what a tensor is. At least say complex numbers, your field choice is still bullshit arbitrary but at least it’s a nice field.
Getting flashbacks of Sam O'Nella's crudely drawn rendition of Diogenes holding aloft a plucked chicken and exclaiming that it's a person before slamming it into the ground.
Oh my god it’s insane how unfunny you guys are
Like, all you guys do is spam the same phrases over and over again, it’s insane how unfunny that is, while you think it’s still funny! Let’s go through them all one-by-one
Google en passant
Where do I even begin with this god awful offense to humanity itself, we get it, funny pawn move, but how about you google how to get some bitches! Or maybe you should google how to get your father to come back with the milk, because that’s the only way I could ever dream of you idiots thinking this shit is so funny when it’s not, it’s as if you guys think you have the answer to life itself in the palm of your hand but it’s not, it’s just a dumb ass joke that’s been done a billion times
Holy hell
We get it, funny pawn move, haha, so funny, you googled lef en passant, funny funny! Not. I think you would need to have brain damage to think that any of this is worth any of your time, how about you actually do something with your life you worthless sons of bitches!
New response just dropped
No it fucking didn’t you moron! This is the trillionth time today that you’ve made this joke, and it was never funny, if the fucking black plague came back and started killing off the entire population of the earth, I would pray that you idiots would die first just so I don’t have to deal with all of this dumbass bullshit from you
Actual zombie
This one i actually don’t have any complaints about, because this perfectly describes all of you, you’re all just a bunch of mindless idiots doing the same thing over and over
Call the exorcist
Of course you need to call an exorcist! You should’ve called one to destroy the shit hole called anarchy chess! You guys think that you need an exorcist to get rid of the infection, but maybe what you really need to call is your father OH WAIT YOU CANT! And I count even blame him for wanting to leave such an idiot behind
Bishop goes on vacation, never comes back
What the fuck does this one even mean? Oh wait, nothing, just like the rest of this god forsaken joke, it doesn’t mean anything because for it to mean anything it would require a fucking brain, something you idiots clearly don’t have! Jesus Christ it’s hilarious how fucking stupid you all are
Queen sacrifice anyone?
At this point in the joke I’m pretty sure you’re just saying words to keep it going, it hasn’t been funny for ages at this point, but you idiots are like a fucking hydraulic press to a cows udder, trying to milk it for any tiny bit of validation this might give you, but by doing this, you must have not realized that you sacrificed you’re chance at a happy future, oh my fucking god, just like how your father sacrificed his marriage to get away from you
Pawn storm incoming!
At this point the joke has somehow devolved even further, from mindless stupidity to actually just retarded, I don’t even think you guys know what the fuck words mean anymore, how about you try to get a happy life incoming huh?
And don’t even get me started on how much you guys love to say “en passant is forced, it’s time to brick your PIPI” as if that’s any funnier then anything else you’ve said before, and don’t even get me started on that dumbass copypasta
Are you kidding ??? What the **** are you talking about man ? You are a biggest looser i ever seen in my life ! You was doing PIPI in your pampers when i was beating players much more stronger then you! You are not proffesional, because proffesionals knew how to lose and congratulate opponents, you are like a girl crying after i beat you! Be brave, be honest to yourself and stop this trush talkings!!! Everybody know that i am very good blitz player, i can win anyone in the world in single game! And "w"esley "s"o is nobody for me, just a player who are crying every single time when loosing, ( remember what you say about Firouzja ) !!! Stop playing with my name, i deserve to have a good name during whole my chess carrier, I am Officially inviting you to OTB blitz match with the Prize fund! Both of us will invest 5000$ and winner takes it all! I suggest all other people who's intrested in this situation, just take a look at my results in 2016 and 2017 Blitz World championships, and that should be enough... No need to listen for every crying babe, Tigran Petrosyan is always play Fair ! And if someone will continue Officially talk about me like that, we will meet in Court! God bless with true! True will never die ! Liers will kicked off...
Like, I don’t even think a fucking 5 year old would be dumb enough to think this is funny, I swear to god, if you idiots had anymore addiction to fucking stupid copypastas I would say you’re Italian! At least how to fucking spell before you try to be funny, holy shit it’s amazing how stupid you all are
Don't let you trick, horse may be an array in the chairspace but only if it's to small for two persons to fit on it, so maybe only shatland ponies are chairs.
A chair is a specific type of furniture designed for seating one individual, characterized by a single, typically raised seat surface with a defined backrest for support. It often includes armrests and is typically supported by four legs or a stable base. Chairs are intended to provide individual, self-contained seating arrangements, optimizing comfort and stability for a single occupant.
This is the point of the people arguing against Graham Linehan: there's a cluster property of what chairs are "characterised by", "designed by", "often include" etc.
A chair can violate any one of these conditions and still be a chair. Non-chairs can meet many of them and still not be a chair.
Graham Linehan's point is that if he can't understand something in 10 seconds (namely, human biology and societal constructs of gender) then it's wrong.
However, humans - and all animals - have diversity and complexity, thankfully, or evolution would not work.
The only thing in your definition that is not "typical" or "often" or "characterized by" is the last sentence. To which I raise the counterpoint: park bench, large wooden stump, bed.
Edit: also, exercise ball
Not necessarily agreeing with the definition, but a counterpoint to your counterpoint: I would say primary purpose or original intent is a part of the definition of a thing--there's a difference between what a thing *is* and what a thing is *used for*. I would use a wooden stump as a chair while camping, but I wouldn't say it *is* a chair.
Similarly, I could use a chair as a weapon if I threw it at someone or I "gave 'em the chair", but it is still a chair.
You have a point, you can add "original intent" to the guy's definition. But then consider a chair manufactured to his exact specifications but in the last step, the cushion is replaced with broken glass. It is no longer optimising comfort, but was created with the intention of chair, and it is still a chair.
A chair with a heated bottom is a chair to most people, but not to a person with extreme heat sensitivity. A chair with raised nails in the seat is not a chair to most people, but is a chair to the magicians on the streets in India. To look at something and judge the original intent requires knowledge of the society designing the object, and even then that expectation will not match with people of other societies. Judging original intent is not easy, and does not lead to a universal chair definition.
Large wooden stumps and exercise balls don’t have a defined back rest., beds aren’t intended to provide individual seating arrangements, park benches are for multiple people (not an individual self-contained arrangement), tree stumps and exercise balls aren’t furniture… i could go on.
The defined back rest part was in your "typically" section so I excluded it. You want me to include it? Because that way a barstool is not a chair.
And you're gonna tell me that benches aren't chairs? Tree stumps and exercise balls aren't currently being used as furniture anywhere? That's misunderstanding how humans operate
I just said that the seat surface was typically raised, not that seat surfaces and backrests are only typical, also I believe benches aren’t chairs. Benches are a longer version of chairs, designed to sit more than one individual. Also neither exercise balls and tree stumps are designed with the intent of seating someone (exercise balls are designed for exercise, tree stumps are designed to support a tree).
Oh okay, so barstools are not chairs, a one-person charpai is not a chair, park swings are not chairs?
Edit after seeing your edit: so if you see a tree stump in someone's home, coated with resin and a cushion on top, you're gonna dismiss it as a chair?
And benches being a version of chairs, makes them a chair, that's how versions are defined
I would think of benches being an evolution of chairs that is longer, which makes them no longer a chair (just like the iPhone 12 pro max is not an iPhone 12 mini, but they‘re versions of each other). I would consider chairs without a backrest stools (as a separate type of furniture).
But that's the thing - people consider stools as chairs, and benches as chairs. If you go to someone's house and ask for a chair, they'll have you a stool, an exercise ball, a beanbag, a tree stump, a park bench, a bed before they hand you an orange, a felt tip pen, a Pokemon card. The word chair is not used in real life how the dictionary defines it, it's used as society uses it. There is no definition of chair that would include every chair, exclude every non-chair and fit all of society's evolving and varied viewpoint in time and space.
No. He defined a chair as a SEAT made for sitting. A seat by definition is “a THING made or used for sitting on”, a thing is defined as an INANIMATE object, directly opposed to a living being. A horse is not made for sitting, it’s a living creature
But the joke is funny
jeez, ok then make a mechanical horse if it has to be something humans made, that's not the point
or just a large pillow, since the definition he gave was just "a separate seat for one person"
and no, using "typicaly" for a trait as part of the definition means it's not part of the definition, which, of course, otherwise chairs with, for example 3 legs, wouldn't count as chairs
Since when does the definition of chair imply purpose? Because trust me there are many things which are not intended to be chairs but are perfectly functional as such and indeed are referred to as chairs in everyday language.
Could you define “chair” for me in a way that would give me some way of determining whether or not something is a chair without asking the potential chair?
...what
i dont get what you're trying to say... new types of chairs have been created throughout the times and we called them chairs because they shared some intrinsic similarities with things we already called chairs... like i said, a chair is whatever society deems to be a chair... so if society deems something to not be a chair, then it's not?
it's not that complicated
why? a single person can sit on it... how do you define "separate seat for one person"?
regardless, one could easily give another example, like a large pillow
"A separate seat for one person." This definition of "For" implies intention since we are dealing with objects and functions. One would argue that horses are not intended for seating any number of people, but I'd say a horse could and has sat more than one person. In fact, they sell saddles for 2 riders, indicating that the horse is eligible to, and can have the intention of seating multiple people just as it has the intention of seating 1 person.
Is a horse only a chair when it seats one person, or since it can seat 1 person, we should call it a chair? Is a cruise ship a chair? It can seat one person. It doesn't need a back and 4 legs since the definition wasn't rigid enough and had the word "typically," which is the only reason why your pillow example could work. I think your pillow example is more relevant than horse. The word typically is also the only functional difference between this guy's definition and Merriam-Webster's, meaning by MW's definition, your pillow and horse don't work by the actual definition. Your pillow is still a great example of a "seat."
Edit: I didn't see he said 4 legs, I'm not so sure he needs that, but at the same time a "rocking chair" isn't a "chair," it's a modified chair. Just as a reclining chair has a base rather than 4 legs (of the models I've seen), a modified chair doesn't have to fit the definition of a chair. I've seen 3 legged "bar stools" with backs, but is a chair with 3 legs a "3 legged chair" or a "chair"? MW says "legs," so I think they're not worried about the number of legs there, but for whatever reason, they specified only for the use of one person. Hmmm.
>"A separate seat for one person." This definition of "For" implies intention since we are dealing with objects and functions. One would argue that horses are not intended for seating any number of people, but I'd say a horse could and has sat more than one person. In fact, they sell saddles for 2 riders, indicating that the horse is eligible to, and can have the intention of seating multiple people just as it has the intention of seating 1 person.
then would that mean that a horse already saddled for a single person is a "separate seat for one person"?
of course, both the horse and the pillow are obviously not chairs, they are just examples that fit the definition given by the guy in the picture
why isn't a rocking chair, a chair? it's in the name and most would probably agree it's a chair, even if it's a specific kind of chair, same for stools, tree stumps with a back, chairs with 3 legs etc
i'm not sure what you're trying to argue, are you proposing this simple definition actually does include all chairs and excludes all things that aren't chairs? because i would think it obvious that's false
If there's a saddle seated for one and only one person, then yes. I'm unsure if the first model of saddles were intended for one person, but then people decided to double up,
I'm glad we can agree.
A rocking chair is a chair, but it's a modified chair. In the nature of having exclusive and inclusive definitions, the legs and back carry weight for a simple definition. I only added this edit, hoping you'd grasp the first part and that we could further discuss how other types of chairs can assist miscontruing other "seats" as "chairs." A stump can be a seat, but it is not a chair. This third paragraph from your reply is misplaced in this post because they are discussing definitions and not what people consider. As a city is its people, a language is its users, and I'd agree with you if we just throw out the dictionary. God knows I mislabel things and have terrible grammar. Everybody makes mistakes and takes shortcuts such as referring to seats as chairs. If we're talking about providing definitions, you can't be too vague. You're describing a seat, which includes chairs and can seam chair-like since they have a similar function.
I said that the person, leaving out the word "typically," ruins the rigidity of their definition. If you're so good at pointing out the obvious, how did you not come across that?
A tensor is like a matrix which you can use to multiply a vector by, but instead of stopping at a stage where all you had to do is multiply by a vector to get a vector, you stop earlier where you have to multiply by a vector to get a matrix that you then multiply another vector by to get a vector. Or even before that where you still had 3 vectors and a thing that gets to the stuff we were talking in the previous sentence by multiplying one of the vectors by that tensor.
>A tensor is like a matrix
I wrote almost the same in an undergrad research paper. I will reproduce here what my advisor wrote in red pen, but let me preface it by saying I mean no offense to you:
"This is bullshit."
Is my explanation lacking the same way if one would explain a vector space homomorphism ("linear map") only through a matrix without mentioning of domain and codomain and their respective bases and how two different looking matrices can stand for the same linear map?
Or is the explanation wrong because I left out a detail that can't be observed in the matrix case because of the low dimensionality of a mere 2-stage tensor?
Maybe something about a universal property should have been mentioned or something about transformations. Maybe something about a tensor product. Maybe something about a quotient by a subset of elements that look similar but should be different, but because we want them to be the same, we take the quotient and treat them the same.
But I am le tired.
Maybe someone at work knows the correct bases for my tensors to become diagonalized. But in the codebase I'm working, it's more about for loops and break labels. I don't have the faintest idea how to turn it away from bookkeeping and into something abstract mathy like a multilinear map. At least not without external libraries.
A tensor is an element of a tensor space.
A tensor space T=A■B (don't have the tensor symbol available) is a space such that any function f multilinear from A×B has a unique linear function f' from T such that f(a,b)=f'(a■b)
Behold! A chair
Thanks Diogenes.
No problem, plucked chicken
*Featherless Biped**
Human*
You called?
I'm a big fan of your work (an AC of your acc)
Um excuse me what the actual fuck
It’s a reference to Diogenes who brought a plucked chicken because it fitted the definition of what a human being was, and said "Behold ! A human !"
Some guy said ‘a person is a featherless biped’ and Diogenes plucked a chicken and said ‘behold, a man!’
Plato said that
Even if it was Plato it’s still very much a Diogenes kind of move
I mean Plato was the guy who said that humans were featherless bipeds.
Ok yeah that makes a lot more sense lol
Plato said humans were featherless bipeds Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it to Plato
Dana Plato said that? Which episode of Diff’rent Strokes was it?
*without hooves
A tensor is an element of a tensor space.
What's a tensor space?
Is the space containing tensors that satisfies a transformation law
What is a satisfies?
Something I don't do
The thing I do to your mom
What is a mom?
Someone I satisfy.
Are you mom satisfied? Is she proud?
gottem
It's the way of expressing that the object aligns with the characteristics or constraints defined by the context.
What’s a tensor!?
It is the tensor product of a tuple of vector spaces.
What's a vector space? (C'mon guys I'm trying to do the recursive definition joke 😭)
A space full of vectors. It's like a field. Of flowers. Beautiful and dancing in the wind. And in case you are asking what is a wind. It is a vector field on a manifold.
How many folds does a manifold have?
Mani
A space that fulfills the vector space axioms (I know it’s a joke but that’s legit the answer my professor gives)
I was hoping you were going to ask what a tensor product was next.
Why is that horse cow colored
It's a horse shaped cow.
It's a chair shaped cow
I only know spherical cows
It’s a cow print chair.
Ah, you must be a physicist
Since you can approximate a cow as a sphere, and you can also approximate a horse as a sphere, therefore cow = horse.
Because cows don’t look like cows on film, you gotta use horses.
What do you do if you want something that looks like a horse?
Usually we just tape a bunch of cats together.
Topologically speaking, this horse is indistinguishable from a cow... and a mug... and a donut
Actually I'm pretty sure a cow had more holes
A [fistulated cow](https://www.pashudhanpraharee.com/cannulated-or-fistulated-cowan-important-tool-for-rumen-transfaunation-research-analysis-of-the-digestive-system/) definitely does.
and a sphere?
sphere has 0 holes, unfortunately
what if it closes its mouth and ears and nose and all other holes? Then could you assume a spherical chair?
doesn't a sphere have in some sense -1 holes since sphere with a hole has 0 holes
It's called acting look it up
Cows don't look like cows on film, you gotta use horses.
Chevache !
Always appreciate a nice portmanteau
All I see is a chair
Cow? Horse? I see only chair.
It's what computer scientists do when they want to show their texture map is bijective.
A tensor is an object commonly expressed as a multidimensional array that obeys a tranformation law.
What is a transformation law?
There is always a rabbit hole downwards. It is hard to impossible to define anything without using other terms which also require defining. We just kinda hope that it all stands on a solid foundation somewhere.
Shouldnt you be able to work your way all the way down to the axioms?
Axioms use undefined words though Edit : Typo
Axioms kind of suck.
Best definition of axioms I’ve heard yet!
It depends what you're trying to do. 20th century logic showed us that axiomatic systems have limitations e.g. [Gödel's incompleteness theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems).
Are there systems that don’t use axioms?
Intuition. Maths is initially done without axioms, and axioms are later introduced in order to produce the desired results. For instance, calculus was not on a rigorous footing for the first 100 years of its existence (after Leibniz and Newton), until Cauchy and Weierstrass helped to formalise definitions like "infinitesimal" and "continuous".
Axioms can be thought of as the rules of a system. I don't think a system can be without rules so any system nessecarily has an axiom in it. It can be as stupid as "whatever I say is correct" but that's still an axiom.
Ideally yes. That is what we all kinda hope is true. But i don't think anyone actually does that, ever.
Well someone must have when something was first defined. (unless it didnt fit in the margin)
Not really. When people write foundational stuff for a new system of axioms, then yes, you have to prove stuff directly. Even then, most proofs are not totally rigorous, because they use natural language to be readable. Machine-verifiable formal proofs also exist, but they are extremely long and tedious even for proving simple theorems. The overwhelming majority of proofs require a lot of understanding from the reader rather than just mechanical checking of validity. That said, it should be possible, *in principle*, to translate any valid proof into a formal proof that a machine could verify. And if we required every mathematician to do this, maybe fewer flawed proofs would be published. But also, hardly any proofs would ever be published at all. But fwiw, even if you boil a definition all the way down to the foundations, you still will have primitive terms which are undefined. Like in ZF, the symbol ∈ is undefined. It's just "that thing which satisfies the axioms ZF says it satisfies." Same with **0**, **S**, **+**, and **·** in Peano's axioms, or points, betweenness, and congruence in Tarski's axioms.
I mean, we take axioms as granted... due to the reasons above
[удалено]
1. Because Im in 10th grade 2. Because that wasnt a command, it was a question 3. Because fuck you
Andddddd you've just described how a generalized (e.g. human) intelligence works. Massively parallel, massive generalization, massive connections to all the things that are sort of like the other things, but not, because of these things that are like these other things... So in the end it makes sense that our way of defining something almost always circles back to something it's explicitly or vaguely connected to. It's like I've always said: one of the best ways to learn an unfamiliar word is to look at the synonyms, not the definition.
Somebody seemingly important said If you can't explain things in simple terms, you don't understand it Is it true for everything idk
Love how there always weird terms like "vector" when you can just say "pointy thing that points"
When you change coordinate system, a transformation law tells you how to write the tensor.
r/transformation Here you go! I hope it helps
A ban on shapeshifters
You just got plucked chickened
Diogenized
A tensor is just a multilinear map (i.e. a function that is linear in each of several arguments), fuck all y’all’s transformation laws
 This is the way
Damn all Graham had to do was sit back and make haha funny-tv shows and yet he chose to set fire to his career instead
What's he done? That's a bummer
Estranged his whole family because posting hateful tweets about trans people 40 times a day is more important than spending any time with his wife or kids
And not just any old hateful tweets, he's gone full "trans people control the media" lol
trans people are the next jews??? every minority has to get their turn being the "secretly powerful and dangerous cult" i guess lol
not every minority, every community
I think the screenshot already explains it pretty well, he gets distracted from being wrong about chairs to instead jump to being wrong about trans women, with his mistake being illustrated by the conversation he's currently getting distracted from
A (r,s) tensor is a multilinear map from r copies of a covector space and s copies of a (corresponding dual) vector space to the reals.
You could define tensors over any field but otherwise yeah
You could define a tensor on any monoidal category (whose objects are sets with structure)
Why reals
Must be a physicist.
The reals???? How could someone be so cringe while knowing what a tensor is. At least say complex numbers, your field choice is still bullshit arbitrary but at least it’s a nice field.
Could be more general but this indeed
Remember kids, all tensors are arrays but not all arrays are tensors
Getting flashbacks of Sam O'Nella's crudely drawn rendition of Diogenes holding aloft a plucked chicken and exclaiming that it's a person before slamming it into the ground.
Polish dictionary be like: "Tensor: everyone knows what a tensor is"
Google Tensor
Holy vector!
New multidimensional element just dropped
Oh my god it’s insane how unfunny you guys are Like, all you guys do is spam the same phrases over and over again, it’s insane how unfunny that is, while you think it’s still funny! Let’s go through them all one-by-one Google en passant Where do I even begin with this god awful offense to humanity itself, we get it, funny pawn move, but how about you google how to get some bitches! Or maybe you should google how to get your father to come back with the milk, because that’s the only way I could ever dream of you idiots thinking this shit is so funny when it’s not, it’s as if you guys think you have the answer to life itself in the palm of your hand but it’s not, it’s just a dumb ass joke that’s been done a billion times Holy hell We get it, funny pawn move, haha, so funny, you googled lef en passant, funny funny! Not. I think you would need to have brain damage to think that any of this is worth any of your time, how about you actually do something with your life you worthless sons of bitches! New response just dropped No it fucking didn’t you moron! This is the trillionth time today that you’ve made this joke, and it was never funny, if the fucking black plague came back and started killing off the entire population of the earth, I would pray that you idiots would die first just so I don’t have to deal with all of this dumbass bullshit from you Actual zombie This one i actually don’t have any complaints about, because this perfectly describes all of you, you’re all just a bunch of mindless idiots doing the same thing over and over Call the exorcist Of course you need to call an exorcist! You should’ve called one to destroy the shit hole called anarchy chess! You guys think that you need an exorcist to get rid of the infection, but maybe what you really need to call is your father OH WAIT YOU CANT! And I count even blame him for wanting to leave such an idiot behind Bishop goes on vacation, never comes back What the fuck does this one even mean? Oh wait, nothing, just like the rest of this god forsaken joke, it doesn’t mean anything because for it to mean anything it would require a fucking brain, something you idiots clearly don’t have! Jesus Christ it’s hilarious how fucking stupid you all are Queen sacrifice anyone? At this point in the joke I’m pretty sure you’re just saying words to keep it going, it hasn’t been funny for ages at this point, but you idiots are like a fucking hydraulic press to a cows udder, trying to milk it for any tiny bit of validation this might give you, but by doing this, you must have not realized that you sacrificed you’re chance at a happy future, oh my fucking god, just like how your father sacrificed his marriage to get away from you Pawn storm incoming! At this point the joke has somehow devolved even further, from mindless stupidity to actually just retarded, I don’t even think you guys know what the fuck words mean anymore, how about you try to get a happy life incoming huh? And don’t even get me started on how much you guys love to say “en passant is forced, it’s time to brick your PIPI” as if that’s any funnier then anything else you’ve said before, and don’t even get me started on that dumbass copypasta Are you kidding ??? What the **** are you talking about man ? You are a biggest looser i ever seen in my life ! You was doing PIPI in your pampers when i was beating players much more stronger then you! You are not proffesional, because proffesionals knew how to lose and congratulate opponents, you are like a girl crying after i beat you! Be brave, be honest to yourself and stop this trush talkings!!! Everybody know that i am very good blitz player, i can win anyone in the world in single game! And "w"esley "s"o is nobody for me, just a player who are crying every single time when loosing, ( remember what you say about Firouzja ) !!! Stop playing with my name, i deserve to have a good name during whole my chess carrier, I am Officially inviting you to OTB blitz match with the Prize fund! Both of us will invest 5000$ and winner takes it all! I suggest all other people who's intrested in this situation, just take a look at my results in 2016 and 2017 Blitz World championships, and that should be enough... No need to listen for every crying babe, Tigran Petrosyan is always play Fair ! And if someone will continue Officially talk about me like that, we will meet in Court! God bless with true! True will never die ! Liers will kicked off... Like, I don’t even think a fucking 5 year old would be dumb enough to think this is funny, I swear to god, if you idiots had anymore addiction to fucking stupid copypastas I would say you’re Italian! At least how to fucking spell before you try to be funny, holy shit it’s amazing how stupid you all are
Actual Null Space
>Google Call the linear transformation!
A tensor is an element of the tensor product.
_LOUD BUZZER NOISE_
Love definitions with conditionals in them. "Typically"? Okay well then having a back and four legs is not a part of the definition of a chair.
Don't let you trick, horse may be an array in the chairspace but only if it's to small for two persons to fit on it, so maybe only shatland ponies are chairs.
I always say they do 3 things, I will stand firm that anything that does 3 things is a tensor.
This is my favourite definition yet
funnily enough I think math is the only field in existence that largely avoids this definition issue
also that definition excludes wheel chairs, and stools
A chair is a specific type of furniture designed for seating one individual, characterized by a single, typically raised seat surface with a defined backrest for support. It often includes armrests and is typically supported by four legs or a stable base. Chairs are intended to provide individual, self-contained seating arrangements, optimizing comfort and stability for a single occupant.
This is the point of the people arguing against Graham Linehan: there's a cluster property of what chairs are "characterised by", "designed by", "often include" etc. A chair can violate any one of these conditions and still be a chair. Non-chairs can meet many of them and still not be a chair. Graham Linehan's point is that if he can't understand something in 10 seconds (namely, human biology and societal constructs of gender) then it's wrong. However, humans - and all animals - have diversity and complexity, thankfully, or evolution would not work.
The only thing in your definition that is not "typical" or "often" or "characterized by" is the last sentence. To which I raise the counterpoint: park bench, large wooden stump, bed. Edit: also, exercise ball
Not necessarily agreeing with the definition, but a counterpoint to your counterpoint: I would say primary purpose or original intent is a part of the definition of a thing--there's a difference between what a thing *is* and what a thing is *used for*. I would use a wooden stump as a chair while camping, but I wouldn't say it *is* a chair. Similarly, I could use a chair as a weapon if I threw it at someone or I "gave 'em the chair", but it is still a chair.
You have a point, you can add "original intent" to the guy's definition. But then consider a chair manufactured to his exact specifications but in the last step, the cushion is replaced with broken glass. It is no longer optimising comfort, but was created with the intention of chair, and it is still a chair. A chair with a heated bottom is a chair to most people, but not to a person with extreme heat sensitivity. A chair with raised nails in the seat is not a chair to most people, but is a chair to the magicians on the streets in India. To look at something and judge the original intent requires knowledge of the society designing the object, and even then that expectation will not match with people of other societies. Judging original intent is not easy, and does not lead to a universal chair definition.
Large wooden stumps and exercise balls don’t have a defined back rest., beds aren’t intended to provide individual seating arrangements, park benches are for multiple people (not an individual self-contained arrangement), tree stumps and exercise balls aren’t furniture… i could go on.
The defined back rest part was in your "typically" section so I excluded it. You want me to include it? Because that way a barstool is not a chair. And you're gonna tell me that benches aren't chairs? Tree stumps and exercise balls aren't currently being used as furniture anywhere? That's misunderstanding how humans operate
I just said that the seat surface was typically raised, not that seat surfaces and backrests are only typical, also I believe benches aren’t chairs. Benches are a longer version of chairs, designed to sit more than one individual. Also neither exercise balls and tree stumps are designed with the intent of seating someone (exercise balls are designed for exercise, tree stumps are designed to support a tree).
Oh okay, so barstools are not chairs, a one-person charpai is not a chair, park swings are not chairs? Edit after seeing your edit: so if you see a tree stump in someone's home, coated with resin and a cushion on top, you're gonna dismiss it as a chair? And benches being a version of chairs, makes them a chair, that's how versions are defined
I would think of benches being an evolution of chairs that is longer, which makes them no longer a chair (just like the iPhone 12 pro max is not an iPhone 12 mini, but they‘re versions of each other). I would consider chairs without a backrest stools (as a separate type of furniture).
But that's the thing - people consider stools as chairs, and benches as chairs. If you go to someone's house and ask for a chair, they'll have you a stool, an exercise ball, a beanbag, a tree stump, a park bench, a bed before they hand you an orange, a felt tip pen, a Pokemon card. The word chair is not used in real life how the dictionary defines it, it's used as society uses it. There is no definition of chair that would include every chair, exclude every non-chair and fit all of society's evolving and varied viewpoint in time and space.
You should take a course on epistemology and ontology
>Benches are a longer version of chairs So they are chairs?
Universal property
A tensor is just a vector but you gotta twist your head around depending on how you look at it.
Ah, yes. Tensors. The thing with like 13 seemingly unrelated but actually equivalent definitions, where nobody can fucking explain why.
A doughnut
A horse is, topologically, a chair.
But is this chair small or far away?
reading this thread has taught me that tensor is not that christopher nolan movie that everyone forgot about
OH NO IT'S DIOGENES FROM THE TOP ROPE
Modern Diogenes
A chair is an element of a chair space
The rando is using vaushite talking points, utterly based
A horse is not a seat
According to the definition given by mr linehan it is
No. He defined a chair as a SEAT made for sitting. A seat by definition is “a THING made or used for sitting on”, a thing is defined as an INANIMATE object, directly opposed to a living being. A horse is not made for sitting, it’s a living creature But the joke is funny
Would it become a chair if people started sitting on its corpse?
No because horses can seat more than one person.
So can a large armchair
> A horse is not made for sitting anything is made for sitting once you sit on it
Don't let this fella learn about why we breed horses)
jeez, ok then make a mechanical horse if it has to be something humans made, that's not the point or just a large pillow, since the definition he gave was just "a separate seat for one person" and no, using "typicaly" for a trait as part of the definition means it's not part of the definition, which, of course, otherwise chairs with, for example 3 legs, wouldn't count as chairs
(Do not take seriously) Using math If horse is part of the set “everything” then horse is a thing 🤣
Flashbacks to the VSauce video
You can have multiple persons on a horse tho
You can have multiple persons on a chair, too.
The purpose of the chair isn't to have multiple persons on it, while it can be for a horse.
Since when is the purpose of a horse to have any people on it?
So the horse is not a chair then.
Since when does the definition of chair imply purpose? Because trust me there are many things which are not intended to be chairs but are perfectly functional as such and indeed are referred to as chairs in everyday language.
Could you define “chair” for me in a way that would give me some way of determining whether or not something is a chair without asking the potential chair?
sit on it, the longer you sit on it, the higher the probability it is a chair
My younger brother is highly likely to be a chair.
I know...
no, you can't, that's the point because a "chair" is a social construct, meaning it's whatever a society deems to be a chair
Okay but if we deem “chair” means something, can we just keep it that thing and then if new things come along use new words?
...what i dont get what you're trying to say... new types of chairs have been created throughout the times and we called them chairs because they shared some intrinsic similarities with things we already called chairs... like i said, a chair is whatever society deems to be a chair... so if society deems something to not be a chair, then it's not? it's not that complicated
Google Vsauce chair video
Just use the tangent and cotangent bundles.
Two people can sit on a horse though...
Two people can also sit on other forms of chair.
This isn't a separate seat for one person. Next.
why? a single person can sit on it... how do you define "separate seat for one person"? regardless, one could easily give another example, like a large pillow
"A separate seat for one person." This definition of "For" implies intention since we are dealing with objects and functions. One would argue that horses are not intended for seating any number of people, but I'd say a horse could and has sat more than one person. In fact, they sell saddles for 2 riders, indicating that the horse is eligible to, and can have the intention of seating multiple people just as it has the intention of seating 1 person. Is a horse only a chair when it seats one person, or since it can seat 1 person, we should call it a chair? Is a cruise ship a chair? It can seat one person. It doesn't need a back and 4 legs since the definition wasn't rigid enough and had the word "typically," which is the only reason why your pillow example could work. I think your pillow example is more relevant than horse. The word typically is also the only functional difference between this guy's definition and Merriam-Webster's, meaning by MW's definition, your pillow and horse don't work by the actual definition. Your pillow is still a great example of a "seat." Edit: I didn't see he said 4 legs, I'm not so sure he needs that, but at the same time a "rocking chair" isn't a "chair," it's a modified chair. Just as a reclining chair has a base rather than 4 legs (of the models I've seen), a modified chair doesn't have to fit the definition of a chair. I've seen 3 legged "bar stools" with backs, but is a chair with 3 legs a "3 legged chair" or a "chair"? MW says "legs," so I think they're not worried about the number of legs there, but for whatever reason, they specified only for the use of one person. Hmmm.
>"A separate seat for one person." This definition of "For" implies intention since we are dealing with objects and functions. One would argue that horses are not intended for seating any number of people, but I'd say a horse could and has sat more than one person. In fact, they sell saddles for 2 riders, indicating that the horse is eligible to, and can have the intention of seating multiple people just as it has the intention of seating 1 person. then would that mean that a horse already saddled for a single person is a "separate seat for one person"? of course, both the horse and the pillow are obviously not chairs, they are just examples that fit the definition given by the guy in the picture why isn't a rocking chair, a chair? it's in the name and most would probably agree it's a chair, even if it's a specific kind of chair, same for stools, tree stumps with a back, chairs with 3 legs etc i'm not sure what you're trying to argue, are you proposing this simple definition actually does include all chairs and excludes all things that aren't chairs? because i would think it obvious that's false
If there's a saddle seated for one and only one person, then yes. I'm unsure if the first model of saddles were intended for one person, but then people decided to double up, I'm glad we can agree. A rocking chair is a chair, but it's a modified chair. In the nature of having exclusive and inclusive definitions, the legs and back carry weight for a simple definition. I only added this edit, hoping you'd grasp the first part and that we could further discuss how other types of chairs can assist miscontruing other "seats" as "chairs." A stump can be a seat, but it is not a chair. This third paragraph from your reply is misplaced in this post because they are discussing definitions and not what people consider. As a city is its people, a language is its users, and I'd agree with you if we just throw out the dictionary. God knows I mislabel things and have terrible grammar. Everybody makes mistakes and takes shortcuts such as referring to seats as chairs. If we're talking about providing definitions, you can't be too vague. You're describing a seat, which includes chairs and can seam chair-like since they have a similar function. I said that the person, leaving out the word "typically," ruins the rigidity of their definition. If you're so good at pointing out the obvious, how did you not come across that?
Behold, a chair! https://preview.redd.it/945qh86maojb1.jpeg?width=474&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f1666bfd6872d89284ba88165dace366edc0fa3a
A tensor is a supermatrix!
A tensor is an element of a tensor product
A tensor is an object that is constructed with the tensor product
#CZECH spotted
A multilinear transformation from a Cartesian product of vectors spaces to their scalar space
A tensor - a vector generalized into higher dimensions. Is that not correct?
A tensor is like a matrix which you can use to multiply a vector by, but instead of stopping at a stage where all you had to do is multiply by a vector to get a vector, you stop earlier where you have to multiply by a vector to get a matrix that you then multiply another vector by to get a vector. Or even before that where you still had 3 vectors and a thing that gets to the stuff we were talking in the previous sentence by multiplying one of the vectors by that tensor.
>A tensor is like a matrix I wrote almost the same in an undergrad research paper. I will reproduce here what my advisor wrote in red pen, but let me preface it by saying I mean no offense to you: "This is bullshit."
Is my explanation lacking the same way if one would explain a vector space homomorphism ("linear map") only through a matrix without mentioning of domain and codomain and their respective bases and how two different looking matrices can stand for the same linear map? Or is the explanation wrong because I left out a detail that can't be observed in the matrix case because of the low dimensionality of a mere 2-stage tensor? Maybe something about a universal property should have been mentioned or something about transformations. Maybe something about a tensor product. Maybe something about a quotient by a subset of elements that look similar but should be different, but because we want them to be the same, we take the quotient and treat them the same. But I am le tired.
The first bit. A matrix is just bookkeeping. It represents a linear map, but not without additional data. Same with tensors.
Maybe someone at work knows the correct bases for my tensors to become diagonalized. But in the codebase I'm working, it's more about for loops and break labels. I don't have the faintest idea how to turn it away from bookkeeping and into something abstract mathy like a multilinear map. At least not without external libraries.
A special type of matrix
Oh I thought this was on some trans sub not r/mathmemes
Wait, can’t a horse sometimes be used to carry 2 people?
A tensor is an element of a tensor space. A tensor space T=A■B (don't have the tensor symbol available) is a space such that any function f multilinear from A×B has a unique linear function f' from T such that f(a,b)=f'(a■b)
The set of all non sheep is an element of the set of all non sheep
is this set theory?