|
Members in Shoutbox
None.
Shoutbox Search
Shoutbox Commands
/w [name] > Whisper
/r > Reply to last whisper /me > Marks as action Shoutbox Information
Moderators may delete any and all shouts at will.
|
Global Shoutbox
Please log in to shout.
[2014-10-07. : 2:47 am] Devourer -- Basically, every spell in LoL is limited to like, approximated, 300 pixels at most[2014-10-07. : 2:37 am] MasterJohnny -- Suppose A is nxn and nonsingular and B is nxm how do I efficiently solve AX=B[2014-10-07. : 2:30 am] Dem0n -- l)ark_ssj9kevinl)ark_ssj9kevin shouted: if you haven't made your OWN shortcut keys, you don't truly know all the shortcut keys. I have not. I'm still using shift+insert to paste D:[2014-10-07. : 1:57 am] l)ark_ssj9kevin -- if you haven't made your OWN shortcut keys, you don't truly know all the shortcut keys.[2014-10-07. : 1:36 am] trgk -- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bwapi/bwapi/master/bwapi/BWAPI/Source/BW/CUnit.h[2014-10-07. : 1:30 am] Roy -- Or, more importantly, how you'd try to manage an array of groups of variables without using structs.[2014-10-07. : 1:08 am] jjf28 -- (was going to say "then think how ugly a function call with that would be" but that's not what you meant by not seeing a diff )[2014-10-06. : 10:03 pm] Moose -- Proof by contradiction. Assume x > 0 does not imply (1/x) > 0, then x > 0 must imply (1/x) <= 0. Since x > 0, you can multiply both sides by x without reversing the inequality, so (1/x) * x <= 0 * x. Since x != 0, that becomes 1 <= 0. Contradiction, GG. ∎[2014-10-06. : 9:29 pm] Moose -- ZoanZoan shouted: btw, how do you prove [ x > 0 ] => [ (1/x) > 0 ] Uh, did you try multiplying both sides by x? ![]() [2014-10-06. : 6:45 pm] Zoan -- I have no idea if I'm allowed to define a multiplicative inverse (1/(x*x)) for (x*x)[2014-10-06. : 6:43 pm] Zoan -- Wait, actually just the left side. then I used multiplicative associativity to change it to (x*x)*(1/x) > 0 * (x*(1/x)) |