99 karma · joined September 19, 2013
Those non-features are also a hallmark of a site that hasn't been updated in 25 years -- or at any rate, a site whose tech stack hasn't been. The average quality of web content was probably higher in the 90s, if 'quality' means density of accurate information.
Square ones do, but m x n ones represent linear maps from an n-dimensional to m-dimensional vector space (over the/a field containing the elements of the matrix).
(Not sure where you live, but in major US cities $8 will get you only the most mass-market stuff - Frontera, Yellow Tail, etc.)
In the first, the author likens Suetonius, author of "The Twelve Caesars", to Michael Wolff, author of a book about a Trump WH scandal and intrigue.
In the second, he references Mar-a-Lago.
If these comparisons to the present "detract" from the "interest" of the article for you, rest assured that's a personal thing.
No, we don't (consume less food).
> No, you can't.
Well, yes, you can, and a professional mathematician just said so, yet it seems you insist that mathematics is all about dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Thinking of the roots in the way described is exactly what Dmitrov did: he explored this analogy, worked with a formalized version of it, and used it to prove a significant theorem.
I agree that the article writer's intro takes the analogy much too far, to the point of being just false — mathematicians don't look at the number line and see "forces" at work maintaining the distances between the integers.
At a distance of 10 feet, the document the program produces seems to nail the form and appearance of a math paper, probably because its template is a real paper. The formulas exhibited are or might be well-formed, but even at 5 feet away, it's clear that you've never see expressions that use so many obscure LaTeX glyphs.
But try to read it, and it's immediately clear that no two sentences in a row even make use the same terms, and that every single sentence is sheer gibberish.
The program is quite good at generating fake-math terminology, and knows more than a bit about naming conventions (e.g. coming up with "Perelman" as an adjective).
But if, for example, this definition passes muster with you:
> Definition 5.1. Let u_{l,V} be a Noetherian algebra. A homomorphism is a homomorphism if it is elliptic.
then I wouldn't want to read your thesis either.
Addendum: A for effort :) but F for the hype.