c/memes · by weird@sub.wetshaving.social · 1yRow major huh 264 points · 14 comments · view on lemmy.world
14 Comments
Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 1y
A matrix is already wearing chaps and needs no additional leg wear.
NorthWestWind@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1y
Wearable for infinite matrices
Zkuld@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1y
Clearly would have one leg per column - joint at the top row
Lucien@mander.xyz · 11 pts · 1y
C vs Fortran
69420@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1y
My matrices wear Hilbert Pants
weird@sub.wetshaving.social · 2 pts · 1y
OpenStars@piefed.social · 8 pts · 1y
Both - one leg each way.
lukstru@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1y
That is a pant, not pants
mumblerfish@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y
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.
OmegaLemmy@discuss.online · 4 pts · 1y
Why are we not considering the matrix as a whole, but as a fucking snake or something?
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br · 4 pts · 1y
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
match@pawb.social · 4 pts · 1y
eigenpants
ftbd@feddit.org · 1 pts · 1y
How would that work? Determinants are calculated recursively
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br · 2 pts · 1y
It's have pants recursively too.