Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tribe's commentslogin

If you liked this, you might also be interested in this project by The Caretaker. He has been diagnosed with dementia, and is producing music over several months to try to capture the progression of the disease. I recommend giving it a listen:

https://thecaretaker.bandcamp.com/album/everywhere-at-the-en...


For another list of recommendations by topic, check out this (very popular) list:

https://github.com/ystael/chicago-ug-math-bib


I think the guy who wrote that original U of C list has stated that it's mainly of historical interest, given the many omissions noted, and that the lists by Baez and Univ. Cambridge that i pushed there are better starting points, or this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/math/wiki/faq

There's lot sof other lists of recommended texts after calc3, https://www.math.ucla.edu/ugrad/courses/math/ and

https://math.berkeley.edu/courses/archives/announcements/fal...

and http://mathoverflow.net/questions/761/undergraduate-level-ma...


Much better. Looking through the intermediate and advanced sections, I see that this guide suffers from none of the omissions which I had complained about in my post (specifically, the omissions of classic works by Arnold and Spivak).

(I still think it would be crazy not to buy the PCtM somewhere before reaching the advanced part of this guide, and it may as well be before the intermediate as well. Consider that without the PCtM, you may never realize that your initial (probably false) assumptions about the scope of mathematics may mean that you will never even get past the beginner section at all!)


Someone made an iPhone app which simulates one of these machines, if anyone is interested in playing around with one:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/oramics/id454505541?mt=8


This is not quite what you are looking for, but it is still pretty interesting:

http://www.verysmallarray.com/?p=1752


I have used Voronoi diagrams (and their corresponding Delaunay triangulations) for interpolation routines.


You might also be interested in this:

http://paulgraham.com/nthings.html


Great recommendation! Thanks for pointing me to it. :)


Isn't this the point of the gas tax? For every mile you drive, you use more gas. The more gas you use, the more you pay. Tracking which roads people are driving on would also require massive infrastructure investment, and have significant privacy implications.


The gas tax doesn't take time (or supply and demand) into account. Driving during rush hour should cost a lot more than driving at 3AM on an empty street. Sure, you use more gas sitting in traffic, but it doesn't make that much of a difference.


Tesla can solve this. They know when and where the car was driven, and each time it's charged, the charging station can interrogate the car and compute the appropriate congestion surcharge.


Singapore is now developing a new congestion charge system based on GPS that will have high granularity. We'll see how that works... http://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/default.aspx?scr=yes&keyword...


Only a little bit, since it doesn't differentiate between crowded and empty roads.

IOW, that price is independent of supply, which makes it useless in changing demand.

I think the infrastructure investments would be very cheap compared to what traffic jams and new highways cost. The privacy issues are real, but I'm OK with them. remember that it will make bad traffic a weird memory!


Isn't this basically how Slashdot works?


Not sure what you mean. In the sense that it features user-submitted summaries for links, yes. But there are lots of blogs where each post is a selected link with some sort of background info. (E.g., Marginal Revolution also has this format for many links.) My dream is to have this for all sufficiently popular links going around the internet on a given day, and to let the summary get progressively more refined.


Please do, I think that they would make a great addition.


When this proof has been presented to me in the past, I believe we assume that m is a positive integer. This is mentioned in one of the comments, but I agree that it should be more clear in statement of the theorem.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: