I think gamedev or I guess graphics programming, visualize maths pretty well. I literally quit high school because I could never make any progress in several areas, including math class. But once I read/watch more about gamedev, programming, graphics programming on my own, I got to understand many mathematical terminologies better than I have ever been taught in any school.

[–] Makeshift@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago

wow I wish we learned this kind of stuff in school

[–] UserNotFound@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I don't know her, so maybe my question is stupid, but does she explain math without using code? I, honestly, am too stupid to programing, I don't understand it. I understand summary, not the second one

[–] BaumGeist@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

She has a youtube channel

I've only watched a couple of her videos--on Splines and Bezier curves--and her explanations and animations were intuitive and beautiful to watch, but ultimately her target audience is game devs... So the answer to your question is "technically yes*"

*it's with the intent of learning to code the math

[–] radix@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I don't know anything about the original post author, but product notation is the same as summation notation except that instead of adding each new term to the running total, you're multiplying each new term. You don't have to know programming to see from the code samples that the only difference in the code is += vs *= (well, maybe it would help to know that * means multiply; I honestly dont rember how common-knowledge that is).

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] lasagna@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

Invented in the 50s, Fortran = FORmula Translating language. It was basically created to solve this sort of problem.

[–] radix@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The biggest difference (other than the existence of infinity) is that the upper limit is inclusive in summation notation and exclusive in for loops. Threw me for a loop (hah) for a while.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] fidodo@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Wouldn't reducer be more precise?

[–] Faresh@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I think this is pretty much the imperative equivalent of foldl (\acc i -> acc + 3*i) 0 [1..4].

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Duchess@yiffit.net 5 points 1 year ago

i still don't understand but thanks

[–] spacesweedkid27@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok now try infinite for loops

[–] darcy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

while

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] SmoothSurfer@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

freya is not a random internet people

load more comments