A matrix is already wearing chaps and needs no additional leg wear.
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
246 points (96.6% liked)
memes
14869 readers
6366 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
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
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
Clearly would have one leg per column - joint at the top row
C vs Fortran
Both - one leg each way.
That is a pant, not pants
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.
Why are we not considering the matrix as a whole, but as a fucking snake or something?
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.