A matrix is already wearing chaps and needs no additional leg wear.
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
247 points (96.6% liked)
memes
16638 readers
2304 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Wearable for infinite matrices
Clearly would have one leg per column - joint at the top row
C vs Fortran
That is a pant, not pants
Both - one leg each way.
If either, a symmetric matrix would stop being symmetric and would hence not be able to wear pants. With this conclusion in mind I propose that symmetric matrices are from now on called naked matrices instead.
It would wear it in the direction of the matrix determinant calculation, the right leg on the positive direction and the left leg on the negative
eigenpants
How would that work? Determinants are calculated recursively
It's have pants recursively too.
Why are we not considering the matrix as a whole, but as a fucking snake or something?