this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
813 points (95.2% liked)

Science Memes

11068 readers
2825 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sal@mander.xyz
fossilesque@mander.xyz
SciBot@mander.xyz
813
I just cited myself. (mander.xyz)
submitted 4 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
237 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mpa92643@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago (2 children)

"Approximately equal" is just a superset of "equal" that also includes values "acceptably close" (using whatever definition you set for acceptable).

Unless you say something like:

a ≈ b ∧ a ≠ b

which implies a is close to b but not exactly equal to b, it's safe to presume that a ≈ b includes the possibility that a = b.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Can I get a citation on this? Because it doesn't pass the sniff test for me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximation

[–] mpa92643@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

ISO is not a source for mathematical definitions

[–] mpa92643@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's a definition from a well-respected global standards organization. Can you name a source that would provide a more authoritative definition than the ISO?

There's no universally correct definition for what the ≈ symbol means, and if you write a paper or a proof or whatever, you're welcome to define it to mean whatever you want in that context, but citing a professional standards organization seems like a pretty reliable way to find a commonly-accepted and understood definition.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Tbh I'm just impressed you:

A) knew there was an iso standard

  1. went to the effort of locating it

iii) posted it in respectful manner, and

e) are correct.

[–] match@pawb.social 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

assert np.isClose(3, 3)