How about a new canonical thread? I'll start:

 

 

This is rendering

 

 

Very interesting. And extremely well explained. Thanks for posting.

 

Is he describing a 2D FFT?

 

 

This is an example of one of the classic fallacies in logical reasoning, namely that if A implies B, that B therefore implies A, generally known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The classic example used to illustrate this fallacy is usually something like:

If it is raining, then the ground is wet.

If we limit ourselves to a world where this is always true, namely that knowing that "is raining" is True, that we can infer that "the ground is wet" is also True, then affirming the consequent would be asserting that if we know that the ground is wet, then we also know that it is raining. But this is clearly not the case, since the ground might be wet because someone just poured a bucket of water on it.

Somewhat surprisingly, because it seems so obvious when a specific absurd counterexample is used, neither the fallacy itself nor the method of disproving a universal claim by showing a single counterexample were formalized until symbolic logic was established by people like George Boole, right around 1850. Prior to that, the focus had been (for literally thousands of years) on formalizing methods of proving that something was true by deductive and inductive reasoning, and not on categorizing and recognizing invalid ways of doing so. Boole's work and its implications on logical reasoning were profound, but profound changes are seldom accepted and adopted overnight or without a fight. So, while these were widely explored topics by the beginning of the 20th century, it's not hard to imagine that quite a few established thinkers were still wedded to older schools of thought.

 

The algorithm is a secret in the bird's brain...

 

This is an example of one of the classic fallacies in logical reasoning, namely that if A implies B, that B therefore implies A, generally known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The classic example used to illustrate this fallacy is usually something like:

If it is raining, then the ground is wet.

If we limit ourselves to a world where this is always true, namely that knowing that "is raining" is True, that we can infer that "the ground is wet" is also True, then affirming the consequent would be asserting that if we know that the ground is wet, then we also know that it is raining. But this is clearly not the case, since the ground might be wet because someone just poured a bucket of water on it.

Somewhat surprisingly, because it seems so obvious when a specific absurd counterexample is used, neither the fallacy itself nor the method of disproving a universal claim by showing a single counterexample were formalized until symbolic logic was established by people like George Boole, right around 1850. Prior to that, the focus had been (for literally thousands of years) on formalizing methods of proving that something was true by deductive and inductive reasoning, and not on categorizing and recognizing invalid ways of doing so. Boole's work and its implications on logical reasoning were profound, but profound changes are seldom accepted and adopted overnight or without a fight. So, while these were widely explored topics by the beginning of the 20th century, it's not hard to imagine that quite a few established thinkers were still wedded to older schools of thought.

His logic failed him in the end. He believed that "like cured like" which wasn't very logical. He became ill after being caught in the winter rain, so wrapped himself in damp cold blankets. It turned to pnumonia which killed him.

 

The algorithm is a secret in the bird's brain...

TLDW - what's the short version?

 

TLDW - what's the short version?

He saved a .png image to a bird. It's in the title.

 

He saved a .png image to a bird. It's in the title.

At what point, surely I don't need to sit and watch it for 30 minutes?

 

...surely I don't need to sit and watch it for 30 minutes?

Nope. And and don't call me Shirley.

 

​

 

At what point, surely I don't need to sit and watch it for 30 minutes?

The other 29 minutes are interesting too.

 

Nope. And and don't call me Shirley.

Fine, I won't call you helpful either.

 

Fine, I won't call you helpful either.

We are not supposed to be doing others' homework on this site.

Post your best effort, and we'll help you figure out where you've gone wrong.

 

We are not supposed to be doing others' homework on this site.

Post your best effort, and we'll help you figure out where you've gone wrong.

Asking you for the salient point raised by the video you posted isn't homework, I can only conclude that you haven't actually watched the video yourself hence the struggle to answer me. It sounds interesting but I won't spend 30 minutes watching it, you get a B- for communication, try harder next time.

 

Hi guys.
Please focus on the Topic.

Moderation.