Khari > Recent Status Updates

Finally, i learned something I did not know that is applicable.

The definition of an outlier.
If the standardized residual is greater than 3 or less than-3 then the measurement is an outlier. Good to know

The only reason I understand even a 10th of this is because I've taken 3 statistics courses. This book is useless at explaining to someone who hasn't already taken them. The one character only exists to say 'oh' 'i understand' 'I'll put that in my notes'. Reading it makes me irritated.

I have no idea what I'm reading.

So, if I wanted to show that there is a relationship between number of appearances and number of words spoken, I would plot that out on a scatter plot, probably with appearances on the x axis and words spoken on the y axis, and if there is a linear relationship, with a high r value, then I can say that they are positively correlated.

My middle school math teacher will be happy to know that I remembered how to add matrices and subtract matrices.

And will be disappointed to know that I forgot how to multiply them...sorry mom.

If we were, then we wouldn't have to keep dealing with heresies that have already been dealt with. But they keep cropping up.

I think the quintessential issue that I am having with this book is the assumption that religion is developed from the human side. That it is humanity grasping after the divine that slowly builds upon itself and eventually reaches a higher plain.

I think that completely denudes the concept of revelation. I also don't think that we are any more nuanced in our religious understanding than our ancestors.

...in a word, little that is really spiritual."

"In [the recent practical reformers] we find carefully arranged schemes worked out with the balance and coherence of an essay, but nothing unaccountable, and for that very reason suggestive; nothing accidental, and for that very reason pregnant in meaning; nothing that rises from the deeps below consciousness to break the rounded unity of the wonted disposition and thereby point to a unity of a higher order....

No. I am not still with you. I have no idea what that mass of numbers means.

I also don't understand the organization. Why would you go from differentiation to matrices? Isn't matrix math a lower level than differentiation? I remember learning about matrices. I don't remember differentiation

I'm going to need more scratch paper...

Dang. If you don't use it, you really do lose it. I just sat there scratching my head for 15 minutes over differentiating y=1/x.

The answer the book gave was -x^-2 all the answers online I opened to try to understand why said 1/-x^2 and I got all confused.

I forgot that those are saying the same thing...

Oh well, At least this book is helping me remember highschool math.

I feel completely vindicated for disliking these books right now.

There's a mistake on page 23. Rule 5. The Product rule at the top of the page has the equation as loge(a) +loge(b)=loge (a*b) [with all the e's as subscript]

On the bottom of the page Rule 5 is written as loge(a) +loge(a)=loge (a*b)

Where was the editor?!? That's a crucial problem!