• 0 Posts
  • 49 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 7th, 2023

help-circle


  • saigot@lemmy.cato196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneBittorrule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    If you’re in india then my understanding is that IPTV is the most cost effective option by a large margin. I"ve never lived there but my family is scattered between Bangladesh and india and they all use IPTVs.

    but I guess to answer your original question: regional pricing






  • If you don’t eat the brain you’ll have a much much lower risk (your link suggests about 9x less likely), and if the person you eat wasn’t a cannibal then your risk is lower still.

    Also worth mentioning that Kuru is a specific disease for natives in Papua new guinea , and it only existed for about 100years and was going away on it’s own when the cannibalistic practice was outlawed.

    I think the health risks of cannibalism is very exaggerated.

    (this is not an endorsement of cannibalism)









  • saigot@lemmy.cato196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneRule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Here is my attempt to eli5, a metric is a formalized/generalized way to describe distance. Smart people thought about what makes distance distance and basically made a set of rules. Distance is a function where the distance between a point and itself is 0 (and only 0 in that case), is always positive, is the same distance whether you are coming or going and that going to a place and then another place has at least as much distance as just going to the last place (which is kind of the same as saying the shortest path between 2 points is a straight line).

    You can see how these rules apply to point in 3d(or 2d) space and our intuitive understanding of distance between them. For example If a store is 2km going to a bank then the store is at least 2km but maybe more and if its 2km from home to the store its also 2km from the store to home. This might seem obvious, and it is for 3d space, but we can take it and apply it to all kinds of things.

    This question is intentionally convoluted, but one way of conceptualizing it is: 🍎🍇🍌 are each functions that takes one value and spits out another. If you would graph this function it makes a line. 🍊 takes 2 lines and tells us how far apart they are, you can think about many ways to compare how far apart 2 line are, but the one given to us is to just take the one where the difference between the heights of the lines is greatest. For an example lets say 🍎 is the price of eggs and 🍇 is the price of organic eggs then 🍊(🍎,🍇) would give us the biggest difference in price there has ever been between them.

    Our task in the problem is to prove that that idea of distance given to us follows the same rules as our intuitive definition of distance.

    E: I originally misread the values the functions took as 2 dimensional coordinates, but it is really just 1 dimensional data, so I changed the metaphor.


  • saigot@lemmy.cato196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneRule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    It should be ||🍎(x) -🍌(x)| +|🍌(x) - 🍇(x)|| >=|🍎(x) -🍌(x) +🍌(x) - 🍇(x)| = |🍎(x) - 🍇(x)| I missed the abs that I added in the previous step.

    let me make the variables less annoying:

    ||x-y|+|y-z|| >= |x-y+y-z| = |x-z| we are getting rid of the abs around |x-y| and |y-z| so the 2 y’s can cancel out. We can do this because |x-y| >= x-y because |q| >= q


  • saigot@lemmy.cato196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneRule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    It’s been a while but here we go:

    for orange to be a metric 4 conditions must be met:

    1. 🍊(🍎,🍎) = 0
    proof

    since 🍎(x) - 🍎(x) will always be 0 for any 🍎 and any x in domain

    1. 🍊(🍎,🍌) > 0 if 🍎 != 🍌.
    proof

    |🍎(x) - 🍌(x)| >= 0 by definition, so 🍊(🍎,🍌) must be >= 0. we only have to prove that:

    🍊(🍎,🍌) = 0 -> 🍎=🍌

    Consider the contrapositive: 🍎!=🍌 -> 🍊(🍎,🍌) != 0

    since 🍎!=🍌 ∃x s.t 🍎(x) != 🍌(x)

    but then |🍎(x) - 🍌(x)| > 0

    thus 🍊(🍎,🍌) > 0

    thus 🍊(🍎,🍌) = 0 -> 🍎=🍌

    1. 🍊(🍎,🍌) = 🍊(🍌,🍎)
    proof

    |🍎(x) - 🍌(x)| = |-1(-🍎(x) + 🍌(x))|

    |-1(-🍎(x) + 🍌(x))| = |-1(🍌(x) - 🍎(x))|

    |-1(🍌(x) - 🍎(x))| = |🍌(x) - 🍎(x)| since |-q| =|q|

    so for any x |🍎(x) - 🍌(x)| = |🍌(x) - 🍎(x)|

    which means 🍊(🍎,🍌) = 🍊(🍌,🍎)

    1. The Triangle Inequality:🍊(🍎,🍇) <= 🍊(🍎,🍌) + 🍊(🍌, 🍇)
    proof

    let x be the element in [a,b] s.t |🍎(x) - 🍇(x)| is maximized

    let y be the element in [a,b] s.t |🍎(y) - 🍌(y)| is maximized

    let z be the element in [a,b] s.t |🍌(z) - 🍇(z)| is maximized

    🍊(🍎,🍇) <=🍊(🍎,🍌) + 🍊(🍌, 🍇) is equivalent to

    |🍎(y) -🍌(y)| +|🍌(z) - 🍇(z)| >= |🍎(x) - 🍇(x)|

    Let’s start with the following (obvious) inequality:

    |🍎(y) -🍌(y)| +|🍌(z) - 🍇(z)| >= |🍎(y) -🍌(y)| +|🍌(z) - 🍇(z)|

    |🍎(y) -🍌(y)| +|🍌(z) - 🍇(z)| >= |🍎(x) -🍌(x)| +|🍌(z) - 🍇(z)| since |🍎(y) - 🍌(y)| is maximized

    |🍎(x) -🍌(x)| +|🍌(z) - 🍇(z)| >= |🍎(x) -🍌(x)| +|🍌(x) - 🍇(x)| since |🍌(z) - 🍇(z)| is maximized

    |🍎(x) -🍌(x)| +|🍌(z) - 🍇(z)| >= ||🍎(x) -🍌(x)| +|🍌(x) - 🍇(x)|| since |q| + |p| >= 0 so |q| + |p| = ||q| +|p||

    ||🍎(x) -🍌(x)| +|🍌(x) - 🍇(x)|| >=|🍎(x) -🍌(x) +🍌(x) - 🍇(x)| = |🍎(x) - 🍇(x)| since |q| >= q forall q

    therefore |🍎(y) -🍌(y)| +|🍌(z) - 🍇(z)| >= |🍎(x) - 🍇(x)|

    since all 4 conditions are satisfied the 🍊 is a metric!