Видео

ok... Really? i just eared your best brain explain without a laugh that a incunable was produced for nothing (you have any idea of the cost in cash, resources and efforts for such a thing, then?)and the proof is given by mathematicians like this who found a pattern reveling no known words.???? yea.... that sure solves a mystery...... sad. loved the book though

fell in it in 94 and still in

The cameraman is an asshole

I feel a lot better now, knowing that the 4 years it took me to finish I'm A Strange Loop is not out of the ordinary

I'm promised a friendly explanation of what a monad is and I get an 18 minute demonstration of composing two redundant functions

i want to be like Latif when I grow up

Wow! I finally understand monads! It's a way to make something that's simple sound complicated. I am so glad that someone is worrying about my job security. I'm ready to drink the Kool-Aid as soon as you can help me with one thing. What is the incantation to use when someone asks me what they're for?

The file link is down :(

Max Planck Institute in Marburg and the Philipps University in Marburg has stumbled upon the first regular molecular fractal in nature. April 2024

Godel's "Theorem" is a complete farce and absolute bullshit. Godel assigns a unique number to all the symbols in real numbers via the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra: e.g., the syntactical symbols "+", "-", "x" (multiplication) as well as the actual numbers and powers (e.g. 3^2). By his criteria, a "proof" consists of a tautology on each side of the equal sign. At first, one might think the statement "3 + 4 = 7" is a "proof", since it can be reduced to a sum of units on either side. But that would be a contradiction, according to Godel, because "3 + 4" has a different Godel Number than "7". So the only "proofs" for Godel are G(wff) = G(wff); any other statement is a contradiction by Godel Number. I call BS - a giant twittering machine built on nothing, see my pdfs on physicsdiscussionforum dot org Remember, you read it here first... :)

i want to be like Latif when I grow up 🥺

Thank you for easy explaination!!

I love it when things are described as trivial. I spent 5 minutes trying to figure out what (x + y ) % 12 was calculating. Now onto monads, lol.

Awesome

Thanks

thx

so you have generics. monads are just something cool you can do with generics of 1 type parameter. calling them "monads" is actually a bit confusing, because it's really more about the BIND function. there are three steps. (there are some additional technical requirements for these steps to really make you qualify, or else things won't work perfectly, but that's not important to understand the general concepts). (when I say "add a function" below, it means YOU need to DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT these functions. sometimes it will be obvious how to implement them, but you might have to be creative and make decisions about how the meaning of your type should flow when you design these.) step 1: start with a generic type of 1 type parameter. Thing<A>. add to it a Map function. Map converts Thing<A>s into Thing<B>s given a function A -> B. in LINQ this is called Select. for javascript arrays it is called map. doing this makes your Thing a "functor". Map lets you convert Thing<A>s to Thing<B>s converting _only_ the inside part (A and B). The outer enhancement part (whatever Thing does) is unaffected. step 2: add to Thing<A> an Apply function. Apply converts Thing<A>s to Thing<B>s given a Thing<function A -> B>. this is a bit weird but it allows you to merge a Thing<A> with a Thing<function A -> B> and get back a Thing<B> which has its uses. (in practice a Thing<A> does something magical to As; this lets you combine two Things together, one that is wrapping a transformation function. you could apply, for example, an IEnumerable<Func<int, string>> to an IEnumerable<int>.) doing this makes your Thing an "applicative". step 3: add to Thing<A> a Bind function. Bind converts Thing<A>s to Thing<B>s given a function A -> Thing<B>. this allows you to convert Thing<A>s to Thing<B>s while not just modifying the inner part (A and B) but also modifying the outer enhancement part (whatever Thing does). in LINQ this is SelectMany. (notice that Select cannot change the structure of the IEnumerable, it can only modify the internal elements. while SelectMany totally can change the whole structure. you can turn any IEnumerable into an empty IEnumerable with a single SelectMany call; or you can double or triple the number of elements, etc.) adding Bind makes your Thing a "monad". (with some other technical requirements; like you are supposed to be able to create a Thing<A> given an A, but that's kind of obvious.)

I purchased this book 3 years ago. Still haven't read a page😂. I am attempting to now.

Extremly good explaination , IIIT Nagpur students must watch

Would infinity be a concept that would be considered true but not provable?

I don't fear it - I just have no use for it.

Is bind a function that takes an Ma to an a? If yes, why not say that, if no... Then I have no idea what a monad is inspite of everything leading up to it in the video being trivial

When you have a high school education in math but still find this absolutely fascinating.. I wish I could go back in time. lol

Which book do you refer sir?

20+ times watch this, every time I got some new insight, this time is I'm more curious about the address part of the Actor model, it's the key to make it a really useful like Zenoh's key expression, a global dynamic name space, instead of more static integer based IP like address

Wow, why the hell did MIT take this course down?!? I really wanted to know which readings were covered in each lecture. Does anyone know if there's a syllabus that says what the readings are?

what is the rule for being a tree?

I gave up after 50 minutes. I found this presentation horrible. I can’t put it in a nice way. Five minutes at the Wikipedia page for Monads tells me far more than this presentation did in 50 minutes and he isn’t finished talking.

it is not true that Zeon's paradox is resolved. It is a common fallacy, esp. to assume that Calculus solved it. Zeno was not that silly. He was referring to monism (how things can't be divided) and inherent complexities when you discretize a continuous concept like time or space. I've written a paper on it, refuting the claims of an MIT philosopher. Also, some books on philosophy of metaphysics throws more light into it.

Hi. Are you alive? 12 years old video and no likes/dislike and only 200 views on this video?

At about 54:30, someone asks if we could write a computer program to tell if a program behaves like a recursive program and the lecturer doesn't seem to know for sure. That problem is undecidable, i.e., there is no computer program that can tell if a program behaves like a recursive program. Could be a nice assignment problem for a theory of computation course (I'm assuming there is a computable function that we consider to not be recursive).

SPJ, what a mensch.

> Dont fear the monad > more than 1 hour long > *mission failed*

WOW... I'm seeing this too late into my career! I've tried to explain this stuff without success. THIS IS THE VIDEO TO REFER TO!!

ik snap er nog steeds geen reet van

Came to this video after a recommendation seeing if I can finally understand monads but alas I failed again. The video has the same shortcomings as lots of other "explaining monads simply" videos on the internet, that is: 1. Start with explaining intuitive and almost obvious concepts, making you think you finally got it. 2. Introducing the bind operator without actually saying what its purpose is, only much later that its somehow related to function composition. 3. Saying, "so you see, it is actually simple" without actually saying WHAT is a monad in all of this writing. Is it the bind operator? Is it a function? Repeating things such as: "See, it's not magic" lots of times doesn't make it more easy to understand. It doesn't help that at the most critical moment the person recording decided to keep the writing of Dr Beckman completely out of the picture. I actually understood much more on a video from "Studying with Alex" which shows step by step BY REGARDING NOTHING AS OBVIOUS how to implement a monad. Of course this was practical knowledge, but as a programmer interested in the monad pattern, that's what I needed. I do not give fault to Dr Beckam, the most difficult things to teach are the obvious ones.

18:00

In most modern Precalc classes, students are taught, using a vector method, that squaring a complex number will double its angular component and square its magnitude. Makes it way easier to eyeball z^2.

Solved the MU puzzle in <10 minutes and feeling pretty proud of myself :)

Xeno, uh, just aim for 2x the distance to the laptop. Travel half the distance. Boom. No calculus. Im the first to have ever answered this without calculus and i didnt go to MIT. I would like my name to go down in the history of philosophy. A full scholarship wouldn't be bad either.

Him: “I’ll give $20 to the first person to prove MU from only these rules.” Me: “I wonder if this is a Millennial Problem…”

“When I taught this course two Springs ago…” as a Sophomore. I didn’t get up in front of a class and formally teach a subject until my Senior year, and that was about once every 2-3 class days, since all of us MathEd-majors had to take turns.

I have been at it (on and off) for 30 years now and still have not got through it!

This is the best explanation of every aspect of the type checking notions, which most videos just gloss over. Thank you so much.

Read the book independently while taking "Computability and Formal Languages" at Barnard/Columbia back in the 80s.

For anyone confused he's refering to Erik Meijer and LINQ

Next level MIT OCW. <3

Can someone explain 37:25? Does the actor use it's own balance when passing balance + deposit to another actor, or it'll be bould to the receiving actor's balance? Also it seems to me that the actor holds immutable data (balance in this case), but is it required for the actor model to work?

Thanks for this informative video !

Is there a version for dummies?