jackmarxist [any]@hexbear.net to chapotraphouse@hexbear.netEnglish · 6 months ago289% Inflation lmaohexbear.netimagemessage-square43fedilinkarrow-up1194
arrow-up1194image289% Inflation lmaohexbear.netjackmarxist [any]@hexbear.net to chapotraphouse@hexbear.netEnglish · 6 months agomessage-square43fedilink
minus-squareqaopjlll [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·6 months agoThis is e^x erasure
minus-squareOwl [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·6 months agoHah, yeah. But on a real-world data set, even if the underlying phenomenon is e^x, you’ll keep amplifying sample noise until the derivatives are basically random. Assuming you even have enough data to keep taking derivatives.
This is e^x erasure
Hah, yeah.
But on a real-world data set, even if the underlying phenomenon is e^x, you’ll keep amplifying sample noise until the derivatives are basically random. Assuming you even have enough data to keep taking derivatives.