pixcavator

Well, the Calc 1 version isn't good enough because there are several variables here. You have to consider a continuous function defined on the sphere -- to capture all possible orientations of the panel. In fact, it could be a closed subset of the sphere -- to take care of all possible shadows, obstructions, etc. This is nice, you don't see a lot of direct applications of pure existence theorems...

>If there is an unqiue optimal orientation for a single static panel (which under realistic assumptions there is)...

If you have some kind of “continuous function attains its max” argument here, I think you should elaborate. Because it’s interesting but not really “trivial”.

>>What should be the unique features that will motivate you to join and participate either as a teacher or as a learner.

On behalf of all teachers in the world, how about paying them?

Q What is I-Corps?

A NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) is a public–private partnership that provides grants to determine the technology disposition of concepts developed by previously or currently funded NSF grantees.

>>many a time i have to rely on wikipedia solely.

As a more readable alternative, try this http://inperc.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Courses.

I wonder how Google would have looked at this idea 10 years ago, or even now: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-4-big-problems-with-googl....

The problem with how seasonal this is seems exaggerated. Just rename it hwbuff.

I think it might be a good idea to do pairwise comparison instead.

Ok maybe you do know. However, it's odd that you bring up that you work at Google and then add nothing new to the discussion (everybody knows about the 200 metrics). How about: "You're wrong, PageRank has never been the foundation of Google search"?

Initially it was the foundation and currently let’s just admit that neither of us knows.

You are saying, I think, that we won’t ever need to know π beyond some accuracy. By saying that you, if you are right, are doing good math.

They found time to publish this in 1998 but have been too busy since? I don’t think so. The reason is that they decided to keep all new development secret. That’s why we have to speculate.

Google was successful then with PageRank, but maybe now they need something better? It is my personal opinion but building something as huge (now) as Google search on such a shaky foundation as PageRank is dangerous.

I don’t think physical constants are made up and they certainly aren’t hidden.

Is manually penalizing the ranks of spam sites solid engneering too?

Does this help: f_a (x) = a * x? Is this a function of x in your opinion?

This isn’t really a book but rather lecture notes. That’s what students see as the lectures are being written on a tablet. Usually, what’s said is just as important as what’s written, so it’s not surprising that it may be hard to read if you go too fast.

I saw him do this a couple of years ago and it inspired me to try it myself. My handwriting isn’t nearly as good as his so I have to transcribe the lectures into TeX. Here’s Calc1 http://inperc.com/wiki/index.php?title=Calculus_1:_course, unfinished.

I agree “Then x = y/2” is fine. However, your reasoning why this is OK (“=” is “equal”) is incomplete. Consider “Then the answer = y/2.”, which is grammatically correct but improper.

Actually, TinEye is pretty good at partial matching.

>>PageRank, like almost all machine-learning algorithms, has some knobs which you can tweak to get various results.

PageRank is a machine-learning algorithm?

"You can tweak" means Google can tweak not the user...

Updated.

I am more recent in applied math (coming from pure) but my impressions are very similar. For the last few years I keep discovering the same thing over and over again: the level of math in “technology” is abysmal, nobody understands it, nobody needs it. Incidentally, I am writing a blog post about PageRank right now. Short version: mathematically, it’s very unsatisfying.

>it's hard to know what to infer when comparing a giant, multicultural country with a small, much more homogeneous one such as Singapore.

That's nothing. I remember a few years ago at this forum someone put forward a report that compared the US with a list of contries with the Vatican at the top.

I agree, this is the best way of looking at the issue. However, this approach requires one to learn a more advanced material first. It’s probably inevitable, but it may be a good idea to start with something more elementary. I’d suggest to start with a loose analogy with Taylor series (calc2).

Hell with Facebook’s replacements; it’s Google who needs a replacement! (Note: I am currently thinking about possible alternatives for PageRank.)

>universe could be a type of cellular automata itself

The problem with this idea is that the universe, unlike any grid, is isotropic (or appears to be). That must be the reason why you don’t see examples of, for example, circular waves here.

It’s not a bad approach. However, the lectures are the only results I can see right now. I criticize the results that I see. And you don’t refute my points. You just see “the sign of weak criticism”.

I remember winging teaching as a TA. After 10+ years I know I stunk, no offense.

>I got rave reviews from students.

How many of them did you fail?

This book has taught me a good deal of algebra. It's self-teaching.

OK, how about a practical example? In all Khan’s lectures on linear algebra find an explanation of how it contributes to calculus.