|
I wonder how chatGPT would do on this question?
It would definitely give you an answer. But it would probably hallucinate one. 
|
|
|
|
|
Librarian is an under valued profession.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Especially Norwegian.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
My first job where I was paid an hourly wage was working for our county library. I shelved books, sorted disorderly shelves, checked books out for patrons, and so on. This was before library operations were computerized.
Yes, I'm that old  .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Our county library is an amazing place. Besides books they have classes in arcane subjects not readily provided by university such gardening tools, a maker lab with all sorts of tools for milling, 3D printing, etc. The people who work there are both paid and volunteer. I can retire all my old books, manuals, etc. there as well.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Our libraries will be the future monasteries, when the dark times come again.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Gee - that is exactly like me!
I learned a lot from it. One thing was skimming: When shelving books, I saw far too many that I'd like to read, so twice a week (I worked two nights a week a the library), I brought 10-12 books with me home. Of course I didn't have time to read them all thoroughly, but I didn't want to just bring them back. So I learned to at least go rapidly through all those I couldn't read every word of, to pick up the main points, see which answers it could provide the day I needed it. I'd say that was very valuable learning!
Actually, I considered switching from software development to becoming a librarian at the technical university; I was offered a paid learning position that would lead to a degree. It would reduce my yearly income by about 10,000 Euros, which was quite significant in the late 1980s, and I had just become a daddy, so I turned the offer down. Some times I regret that I did.
I don't think that library was computerized until it was caught in a fire, burning to ashes all the books on the shelves, including the two or three incunables the head librarian once showed me in the back room. She did not allow me to hold them; she wore white cotton gloves herself when handling them. But they were lost in the fire.
The only good thing is that while the old library was really old and backwards, the new one that was build was really appealing, with practical solutions and lots of modern facilities that would have been difficult or impossible to install in the old building.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: The only good thing is that while the old library was really old and backwards, the new one that was build was really appealing
In 1977, the middle of my tenure, a new building was constructed and all of our inventory was moved. That building is now being renovated and expanded, a little over 40 years later.
The original building was a Carnegie library[^] constructed by philanthopist Andrew Carnegie. It still stands and is in relatively good condition. It has been used for several businesses and even a private residence at one point. At the moment it is empty, waiting for someone with resources and inventive ideas to bring it back to life.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
It seem that many of us are convinced that -∞ is larger than 0 so I thought I'd try and explain why that isn't the case, even though it does seem to make sense.
Let's look at what "greater than" actually means (in all cases I'll use integers but it's exactly the same for floating point numbers).
1 is greater than 0, 2 is greater than both 1 and 0, 3 is greater than 2, 1, and 0, and so on: the general case is "if you add a positive number* to a value, you get a value that is greater than the original":
X + n > X where n is any positive number.
Similarly, "less than" comes down to:
X - n < X where n is any positive number.
And it works:
2 > 1 because 1 + 1 == 2; 3 > 1 because 1 + 2 == 3; ...
1 < 2 because 2 - 1 == 1; 1 < 3 because 3 - 2 == 1; ...
And we can use "greater than" and "Less than" for find maxima and minima for a set of numbers.
We can find the smallest positive number by taking any positive number as a starting point and repeatedly subtracting 1 until we reach a non-positive value (which will be zero): 1 was the last, so it's the smallest positive number.
Everyone here has agreed on that!
But when we look for the largest negative number it seems that some people are mistaking the absolute magnitude of a value for the value itself, and saying that the largest negative number is -∞
But that's not the case: just as numbers get smaller as you approach 0 from the positive side, they don't start getting bigger again as you move away into the negative side:
1 > 0; 1 > -1; 1 > -2
Slide that sideways and it's clearer for negative numbers:
0 > -1; 0 > -2; 0 > -3
-1 > -2; -1 > -3; -1 > -4
So to find the largest negative number, we start with any negative number as a starting point and repeatedly adding 1 until we reach a non-negative value (which will be zero): -1 was the last, so that's the largest negative number.
Make sense?
* Zero is neither positive nor negative because the definition of both those terms stems from the direction of X from 0.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
modified 16-Feb-24 4:00am.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think anyone doubted that -1 is the greatest negative integer. It is just that the concept of "large negative" can be easily interpreted by "a number with a lot of figures and minus sign in front of it".
|
|
|
|
|
How about -π: it has lots of figures and a minus sign
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
You are evil... 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
e^iπ is the largest negative integer, I'd say.
modified 16-Feb-24 5:08am.
|
|
|
|
|
eiπ
FTFY.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Eye thang ewe.
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome... I think.
Kind of sounds like an indecent proposal to a sheep, but to quote the immortal Marty Feldman, "Suit yourself; I'm easy."
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
A simple method I use is:
If number A is to the right of another number B on the usual number line, then A is larger of the two. Otherwise B is larger.
Consequently the largest of a set of numbers is the rightmost on the number line.
(Of course, two numbers can both be equal, in which case this question doesn't arise).
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't explain that, it involves division and I can't do that. 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul6124 wrote: on to infinity equals minus 1/12
As it says "only equals -1/12 because the mathematicians redefined the equal sign."
You can also prove other things by ignoring and/or redefining terms and assumptions in mathematics.
For example it is generally accepted that you cannot prove in Euclidean geometry that parallel lines do not intersect. However you can prove that if you assume that a right triangle has a 90 degree angle. So trade one assumption for another.
So in terms of the prior post one can redefine the problem by asserting that negatives can be bigger if the absolute value is bigger. Thus redefining what 'bigger' means in terms of the standard for Number Theory.
|
|
|
|
|
So what you’re saying is, mathematical proofs are like statistics, you can make them suit your narrative
|
|
|
|
|
Paul6124 wrote: you can make them suit your narrative
lol - yes.
The posted link provides a complex example but people have been proving things for a long time by ignoring what divide by zero means. (Long time in my case means I saw such a proof in grade school which meant it existed quite some time before that even.)
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
