←back to thread

105 points lapnect | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.402s | source
1. lamename ◴[] No.41914115[source]
> The best way to do that, I think, is to do away entirely with the symbolic and mathematical foundations, and to derive what Gaussians are, and all their fundamental properties from purely geometric and visual principles. That’s what we’ll do in this article.

Perhaps I have a different understanding of "symbolic". The article proceeds to use various symbolic expressions and equations. Why say this above if you're not going to follow through? Visuals are there but peppered in.

replies(1): >>41914962 #
2. Torkel ◴[] No.41914962[source]
Agree. This text relies heavily on traditional mathematics to define and work through things. It's quite good at that! But it does become weird when it starts out by declaring that it won't do what it then does.

It also felt like this could be a good topic for a 3b1b video... and... here's the 3b1b video on gaussians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_qvLDhkg00