HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

complexcomplex

no profile record

comments

complexcomplex
·5 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
I sniff an air of condescension; what’s your goals therein? Are you posturing your ‘maths’ knowledge?

I thought I was explicit in my criticism of “notation only” explanations, but perhaps a positive example would be more explicit.

https://github.com/barbagroup/CFDPython

This repo explains computational fluid dynamics (an example of a complex system!) from “what is a python function” to “2d Navier stokes”.

It shows the work of how to discretize ‘latex beautified’ notation, shows the relationship between the computations and the notation, and even explains when their LaTex strays from “conventional use of notation” and why.

The authors even throw in traditional handwritten board lecture videos if that helps you learn better.

complexityexplained reads like it’s written by the Spider-Man points at Spider-Man meme.
complexcomplex
·5 ปีที่แล้ว·discuss
I hope to see the end of LaTex only explanations.

The site already has simulations so one must assume it has code that could codify those LaTex eqs.

Perhaps a ‘things ever ___ should know about ___’ is needed for mathematicians and notation.

Ala, “some disciplines use the same symbols for different functions” and “many symbols are intended to obfuscate details for ease of hand writing”.

Perhaps this is meant as a collection of reference material and I am wrongfully assuming complexityexplained is trying to be educational material, but if the intended audience is people hoping to have complexity explained to them then I think code and its underlying abstractions are going to better explain to a higher percentage of people who click through than LaTex.

Show both if you can.