nur0n0

Can anyone here help me configure lxd? I just need to know how to create the 'lxd' group

Also, I had never made the connection between plants, diodes, and semiconductors before

@AkivaWeinberger thanks! I watched some of Doc's videos when I was trying not to fail physics. I bookmarked them for later, they will replace my PBS SpaceTime slot for today lol

ok, I think I got it

where the holes and electrons are sitting next to each other

so the electrons only move in the 'depletion zone'?

oh ok, got it

The only thing that isn't making sense is how you keep the electrons together, I feel like they would eventually repel each other..

That's what Einstein got the Nobel prize for, no?

Aha! that makes a lot of sense

beat me to it again lol

ok, what happens if you apply a current in the other direction?

you mean energy loss correct?

I was just about to say the one direction part lol

You are making sense so far..

Which you just managed to give a concise review of, nice!

@AkivaWeinberger All engineering really is inspired from nature! p-type and n-type silicon sound vaguely familiar from my computer architecture class..

photosynthesis is the inverse of burning wood to create fire

not sure if you were being more precise than this..

@AkivaWeinberger This reminds me of Feynman! youtube.com/watch?v=N1pIYI5JQLE at 3:20 - 4:30 specifically

I meant solution sets, not solution spaces.

@AkivaWeinberger Awesome! I think I saw the $+$ notation in Axler's book. Although now it seems kind of obvious (doesn't it always?), I hadn't even considered $T - T = S$! It led me to some new insights about solution spaces :D

@AkivaWeinberger Thanks, that's much cleaner. It's reassuring to know I'm on the right track.

@TheSubstitute Interesting question.. I can't help you, but that seems like a good question for the main site; or maybe stats.stackexchange?

Any thoughts?

Basically I'm trying to say that once you have a solution to $AX = B$, you can tack on any vector from the associated homogeneous system and still get a solution. Actually, this might be a better formulation: $(\forall w \in T)(\forall u \in S)((v = w+u) \rightarrow v \in T)$

The statement I want to check is the last one.

Say you have $AX=B$ with solution set $T$ and the associated homogeneous system $AX=0$ with solution set $S$. Assuming $T \neq \empty$, then $(\forall w \in T)(\forall v \in T)(\exists u \in S)(w = v + u)$

I just need to make a statement is well formed and it's saying what I want it to say.

Hey guys, can anyone familiar with set notation and basic linear algebra (I'm sure all of you are lol) help me out? I'm revisiting linear algebra with a slightly more formal approach and I want to make sure my notes are not pure jiberish.

@Fargle agreed

if you are going to watch youtube check out 3blue1brown if you haven't already

alright man, rest easy

as long as they find cool math to show everyone I don't mind it

everyone has their own approach

I got started on math very late, it kind of sucks that I didn't have a good teacher when I was young. But I'm having a lot of fun recovering lost ground

its no use comparing yourself to anybody

@Typhon lol, I don't think you are lying

damn, my high school math classes were a joke

masters?

@Typhon what was that essay for?

Just wondering if anyone thought it was any good as an intro book

@Daminark $(\exists x \in this_room)(readTao(x))$ is that any better?

@user21820 holy crap that second link is a great outline, I'll take a closer look later. What is intimidating to me is that even if you have a firm grasp on the formal aspect of logic, you still have to deal with the cognitive/psychological aspect in order to get the big picture of reasoning

@user21820 cool, thanks for the link, its very complete. I studied some logic on my own and I took a 'theory of computation' in school, but I have far from complete knowledge of it I think

"If people read ... ideas about proper logic ..." <- that comment

@user21820 Also, I'm curious about your starred comment; can you recommend a good intro logic book?

I think syntax serves the same role as axioms, no? (if I understand what you mean by syntax) You have to agree on some sort of baseline and build up from there

I think questioning the natural numbers is a good way to jump head first into a rabbit hole

@user21820 nice link you posted