21–30 of 54 posts
are there resources where linear algebra is discussed in the context of deep learning?
OCW so it's free(!), including the videos and handouts.
I was scrolling through to see if you explain how you typeset the math (notoriously hard on webpages), but I happened to instead find a small mistake. You write: "Elements of $\mathbb{R}^n$ are sets of real numbers." That is an incorrect definition. - It is inaccurate because n doesn't enter into the definition (and thus all Euclidean spaces would be the same). - You want ordered n-tuples, not sets. If you actually d…
I was scrolling through to see if you explain how you typeset the math (notoriously hard on webpages), but I happened to instead find a small mistake. You write: "Elements of $\mathbb{R}^n$ are sets of real numbers." That is an incorrect definition. - It is inaccurate because n doesn't enter into the definition (and thus all Euclidean spaces would be the same). - You want ordered n-tuples, not sets. If you actually d…
Keep in mind those are just notes I made for myself. I decided to put them out there just in case someone found them useful and to signal my skill... By practicing ML/DS in the last couple of years, I came to realize that what I put there is probably more than what is needed to know for applied ML/DS, and conceptual inaccuracies like those have little to none relevance
I mean no offense by saying that, and it's human nature to be wrong.
However, this is not a "conceptual inaccuracy". It's wrong. Straight up, old-fashioned wrong. And don't tell me it's of "little to no relevance" that your definition of R^2 does not distinguish between (0,1) and (1,0).
I was scrolling through to see if you explain how you typeset the math (notoriously hard on webpages), but I happened to instead find a small mistake. You write: "Elements of $\mathbb{R}^n$ are sets of real numbers." That is an incorrect definition. - It is inaccurate because n doesn't enter into the definition (and thus all Euclidean spaces would be the same). - You want ordered n-tuples, not sets. If you actually d…
I am in the beginning, but so far, I'd recommend the book. Though, the steep price (almost 100USD over here) makes it a bit difficult to recommend. I might buy Boyd’s and Vandenberghe’s Introduction to Applied Linear Algebra later and write a comparison.
I was scrolling through to see if you explain how you typeset the math (notoriously hard on webpages), but I happened to instead find a small mistake. You write: "Elements of $\mathbb{R}^n$ are sets of real numbers." That is an incorrect definition. - It is inaccurate because n doesn't enter into the definition (and thus all Euclidean spaces would be the same). - You want ordered n-tuples, not sets. If you actually d…
I was scrolling through to see if you explain how you typeset the math (notoriously hard on webpages), but I happened to instead find a small mistake. You write: "Elements of $\mathbb{R}^n$ are sets of real numbers." That is an incorrect definition. - It is inaccurate because n doesn't enter into the definition (and thus all Euclidean spaces would be the same). - You want ordered n-tuples, not sets. If you actually d…
Totally agree with this post...however, to be extremely pedantic (and thus not suitable for the article in question), a tuple in the foundations of mathematics is typically defined as a set. That is, (x,y) := {x,{x,y}}, where the latter is the set containing the element x and the set {x,y}. That is how one goes from axiomatic set theory to define tuples of numbers.
After stumbling across the author's twitter where he already complains that people are "being mean on HN", and seeing his responses there, I have some serious doubts about whether he is fit to be teaching people mathematics. I honestly applaud him for writing the article, and don't hold the math mistake against him at all. But the incredible defensiveness when confronted with a small mistake is absurd.
I just recently finally bought Strang's introduction to Linear Algebra. The book itself is very dense and, dare I say, scary to a newcomer, but his videos are amazingly clear in combination with the book. I am in the beginning, but so far, I'd recommend the book. Though, the steep price (almost 100USD over here) makes it a bit difficult to recommend. I might buy Boyd’s and Vandenberghe’s Introduction to Applied Linea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep in mind those are just notes I made for myself. I decided to put them out there just in case someone found them useful and to signal my skill... By practicing ML/DS in the last couple of years, I came to realize that what I put there is probably more than what is needed to know for applied ML/DS, and conceptual inaccuracies like those have little to none relevance
Well, wrong is wrong :-) I mean no offense by saying that, and it's human nature to be wrong. However, this is not a "conceptual inaccuracy". It's wrong . Straight up, old-fashioned wrong. And don't tell me it's of "little to no relevance" that your definition of R^2 does not distinguish between (0,1) and (1,0).