I don’t understand
Comment on gotdamn
Hadriscus@lemm.ee 2 years agoWhat ? No, it’s 3 2 4 1
If you’re talking chronological that is
LPodyssey07@lemm.ee 2 years ago
spujb@lemmy.cafe 2 years ago
-
if you assign a number 1-4 from top to bottom, reading order is then the indices 3, 2, 1, 4
-
alternatively, if you assign 4, 2, 1, 3 to each element top to bottom, reading order is then 1, 2, 3, 4
different algorithms, same result. in permutation this looks like:
- \sigma = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \ 3 & 2 & 1 & 4 \end{pmatrix}
versus
- \tau = \begin{pmatrix} 4 & 2 & 1 & 3 \ 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \end{pmatrix}
ikidd@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Instructions unclear, dick caught in semi-colon.
-
Zozano@lemy.lol 2 years ago
What?
The posts have times on them.
3
blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 2 years ago
This diagram helps to show that you and Hadriscus agree on the order of the posts, but not on how to describe it. That’s pretty interesting to me.
Zozano@lemy.lol 2 years ago
The fact that we have gotten this confused is all the evidence I need to change how how this works.
bitwaba@lemmy.world 2 years ago
The fact that neither can agree on how to describe it yet agreeing on what is so wrong in the first place is just an additional data point on how stupid Twitter numbering is. I find that fascinating.
Hadriscus@lemm.ee 2 years ago
hhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnn
You’re right
Fades@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Exactly haha, they are both arguing the same point because they used different numbering scheme!