Yeah, I wanna see shell scripts, puppet and vimrc files, C++ tricks, coding techniques, circuit teardowns, MCU hacks, and docker discussion...! (Seriously) Not WikiLeaks and censorship and vote suppression!
I've been spending more time on stackexchange, it is probably better suited to what I'm looking for.
> Repeat after me: all technical problems of sufficient scope or impact are actually political problems first.
How does a "fat pointer in C" or "devops for ML" become political? I'm joking, but I think too many deliberately charged issues make it to the top. I popped over to slashdot for the first time in years and it has become a right-wing megaphone. It is very sad. I would prefer to not see HN go this way. (Mea culpa: I'm partially to blame for this because politics makes my blood boil... but it would be nice to just say 'no' at some point...)
I guess if you go through life with your eyes closed, or only listening to one side, then I can see how you'd think that. There's no place to start with someone as ignorant as you. Literally, I could list all of the ways the US left has helped improved the quality of living, and all the ways the US right has actively hurt people and you'd shrug and still spout the same ignorant comments. So all I have left for you and your type is contempt. Utter contempt.
One side wants to help people, the other side wants to punish people. It is very clear from your post history that you are the "I got mine fuck you" breed of conservatism that has corrupted the US for the past 40 years. You are the enemy.
The number of people in this thread defending the right to spread billionaire-funded lies, propaganda, and misinformation under the guise of free-speech is drop-dead astonishing. Like, I can see why civilization could fail on a massive scale if a critical mass of the population starts to believe the opposite of the truth, and declares war on those trying to explain.
> you don't think there's any need for a way to determine whether two real numbers are equal.
You are putting words in my mouth.
And you clearly do not understand the answer.
I guess I'm not very good at ELI5 because I very clearly answered your question with your own proposal.
Maybe when you get to college a professor can do a better job explaining it to you (if you actually make it to college, because you're going to struggle very hard if that's how you think when an answer is spoon-fed to you).
Hmmm... I would find this extremely error-prone. Probably due to my own issues, but flipping through multiple remote sessions in tmux in the same window would get confusing after N=2 terminals.
But who manages THAT many remote sessions? Seems like an upstream problem to me, no?
I'm not sure if you are asking for an answer or a rhetorical question? I'll assume the former.
Your terms are bit jumbled, so let's keep it simple: you're asking how to prove if an infinite sum converges and what its value is. Convergence proofs require analytic thought: meaning there may not be an immediate look-up. You need to convert the problem into the known corpus of convergent sums or use one of many tests (bounds test, integral test, etc) to show it converges analytically. Which you only learn through experience and memorization (unless you want to re-prove hundreds of series... maybe you do!) Fortunately this one is easily re-written as a known convergent sum.
First, you missed a term in your sum (9), re-written here:
sum(n=1..inf) 9 * 10^-n
Step 1: you pull out the 9 and it becomes 1/10+1/100+1/1000...
Step 2: Then we shift to n=0 by subtracting 1/10^0 from the series so that it is in the form n=0..k-1
Step 3: Now we've got ourselves a geometric series of just 1/10^n .. wikipedia does a great job explaining the sum convergence for GS from n=0...inf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series
> I say this as someone who passed 2 semesters of graduate QM.
THat's funny because my EE math concentration was on advanced calculus. I took two semesters of a-calc and got A's, but I only know how to compute a Jacobian and apply it, not its origin story. It's a very weird feeling to understand the motions but not the ... depth?
Funny, I now treat everything as a promise: all my functions are async because it keeps the interface simpler: if they don't return a promise, they are just a normal function, no harm, no foul.
I see no reason to use callbacks, unless the NodeJS module dev didn't implement promises. And even then I write a wrapper. I'm glad to see later versions of Node include promisified versions of things like File IO.
I think you're going to point out that I'm about to demonstrate non-JavaScript nuances, but here are issues I've encountered:
Let's take a great of example of where promises are used most often: AJAX. If the endpoint isn't RESTful and there is state on the other end, cancelling a promise requires updating the entire module of the new state. There can be multiple reasons for cancelling, and the code needs to be aware of what is happening beyond a simple timeout.
Same thing goes for USB devices (via libusb+ffi) and serial-ports (via serialport). In flight requests can disturb state if cancelled, and it makes the programming very complex to just time-out.
One could argue AJAX and hardware programming are outside the domain of JavaScript, but I wouldn't.
I guess it is more than a "nuance", it is the observance that cancelling an asynchronous operation in general can have unintended consequences if not handled correctly ... beyond memory leaks from unresolved promises.
Short answer: there isn't an easy answer. Yet. (Give QC another 50 years).
Proof? Just look at all the replies you got: each one is dozens of pages of complex (imaginary) math, control theory, and statistics.
The hardest part of QC is exactly what you described: how to extract the answer. There is no algorithm, per se. You build the system to solve the problem.
This is why QC is not a general purpose strategy: a quantum computer won't run Ubuntu, but it will be one superfast prime factoring coprocessor, for example (or pathfinder, or root solver). You literally have to build an entire machine to solve just one problem, like factoring.
Look at Shor's algorithm: it has a classical algorithm and then a QC "coprocessor" part (think of that like an FPU looking up a transcendental from a ROM: it appears the FPU is computing sin(), but it is not, it is doing a lookup... just an analogy). The entire QC side is custom built just to do this one task:
I've been spending more time on stackexchange, it is probably better suited to what I'm looking for.