The Problem with Cropping Every programmer or graphic designer with some web development experience can attest to the fact that finding good images that have an exactly specified size is a pain. Since the dimensions of the sought picture are usually inflexible, an uncomfortable compromise can come in the form of cropping a large image down to size or scaling the image to have appropriate dimensions. Both of these solutions are undesirable.

In this post we’ll expand our toolbox of proof techniques by adding the proof by contradiction. We’ll also expand on our knowledge of functions on sets, and tackle our first nontrivial theorem: that there is more than one kind of infinity. Impossibility and an Example Proof by Contradiction Many of the most impressive results in all of mathematics are proofs of impossibility. We see these in lots of different fields.

In this post we’ll cover the second of the “basic four” methods of proof: the contrapositive implication. We will build off our material from last time and start by defining functions on sets. Functions as Sets So far we have become comfortable with the definition of a set, but the most common way to use sets is to construct functions between them.

I recently posted an exploratory piece on why programmers who are genuinely interested in improving their mathematical skills can quickly lose stamina or be deterred. My argument was essentially that they don’t focus enough on mastering the basic methods of proof before attempting to read research papers that assume such knowledge.

For those who aren’t regular readers: as a followup to this post, there are four posts detailing the basic four methods of proof, with intentions to detail some more advanced proof techniques in the future. You can find them on this blog’s primers page. Do you really want to get better at mathematics? Remember when you first learned how to program? I do. I spent two years experimenting with Java programs on my own in high school.

A common problem in machine learning is to take some kind of data and break it up into “clumps” that best reflect how the data is structured. A set of points which are all collectively close to each other should be in the same clump. A simple picture will clarify any vagueness in this: cluster-example Here the data consists of points in the plane.

The graph is among the most common data structures in computer science, and it’s unsurprising that a staggeringly large amount of time has been dedicated to developing algorithms on graphs. Indeed, many problems in areas ranging from sociology, linguistics, to chemistry and artificial intelligence can be translated into questions about graphs. It’s no stretch to say that graphs are truly ubiquitous.

Being part of the subject of algebraic topology, this post assumes the reader has read our previous primers on both topology and group theory. As a warning to the reader, it is more advanced than most of the math presented on this blog, and it is woefully incomplete. Nevertheless, the aim is to provide a high level picture of the field with a peek at the details.

It is a wonder that we have yet to officially write about probability theory on this blog. Probability theory underlies a huge portion of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and statistics, and a number of our future posts will rely on the ideas and terminology we lay out in this post.

The First Isomorphism Theorem The meat of our last primer was a proof that quotient groups are well-defined. One important result that helps us compute groups is a very easy consequence of this well-definition.

Neurons, as an Extension of the Perceptron Model In a previous post in this series we investigated the Perceptron model for determining whether some data was linearly separable. That is, given a data set where the points are labelled in one of two classes, we were interested in finding a hyperplane that separates the classes.