I will fucking piledrive you if you mention AI again.

Some software can be pretty resilient. I ended up watching this video here recently about running doom using different values for the constant pi that was pretty nifty.

Yes, informally in the sense that the error between the two numbers is “arbitrarily small”. Sometimes in introductory real analysis courses you see an exercise like: “prove if x, y are real numbers such that x=y, then for any real epsilon > 0 we have |x - y| < epsilon.” Which is a more rigorous way to say roughly the same thing. Going back to informality, if you give any required degree of accuracy (epsilon), then the error between x and y (which are the same number), is less than your required degree of accuracy

He is right. 1 approximates 1 to any accuracy you like.

Eigenvectors, values, spaces etc are all pretty simple as basic definitions. They just turn out to be essential for the proofs of a lot of nice results in my opinion. Stuff like matrix diagonalization, gram schmidt orthogonalization, polar decomposition, singular value decomposition, pseudoinverses, the spectral theorem, jordan canonical form, rational canonical form, sylvesters law of inertia, a bunch of nice facts about orthogonal and normal operators, some nifty eigenvalue based formulas for the determinant and trace etc.

There is nothing inherently “good” about religion at all. Honestly, I believe it cheapens the human race. It says that humans aren’t strong enough on their own. They NEED the guidance and help of invisible beings to do the things they do

It’s arguable whether anything is inherently good at all.

The idea that belief in a god cheapens the human race, or that belief in a god makes people weak isn’t any different from saying belief in natural forces that we analyze scientifically cheapens the human race or makes people weaker in some sense.

God had no part in it. God doesn’t deserve the credit. I put in the work.

Scientific arguments can be made for why your success isn’t truly your own either. I.e. socioeconomic class, geographical proximity to resources, nature vs nurture arguments etc.

On top of that, not all theists would say you don’t deserve credit for your hard work.

But the main problem with religion is that it is an override switch for critical thinking. Things that are obviously, and proven to be helpful and right. They can become muddy at best and downright wrong when viewed through the lens of religion.

Failing to think critically is not an issue solely held by theists. Atheists can and regularly do fail at this. Normal people of all types fail at this often. The assumption that theism implies a failure to think critically is just wrong. Most theistic beliefs can easily be made consistent with scientific thinking for what it’s worth.

In the end the small positives aren’t worth the negatives, and for those “good religious people” you still support machines that are into child marriage, child molestation, keeping women down, and hurting other humans just because your god said it’s cool.

I don’t think religious institutions are the only institutions that do these things. Perhaps I am wrong? But to claim these crimes are solely a theistic thing seems incorrect to me.

But even if they are, the institutions themselves and the religious beliefs are distinct. All religions really try to do is to explain things we don’t really have answers for. This is not inherently bad, atheists do this about as much as theists as far as I can tell.