MIT OCW: Linear Algebra 18.06 VS Hacker News Search

A lot of people think Gil Strang was that. Certainly his 18.06SC lecture series is fabulous.[1] I really like Sheldon Axler and he has made a series of short videos to accompany the book that I think are wonderful. Very clear and easy to understand, but with a little bit more of the intuition behind the proofs etc. [1] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL221E2BBF13BECF6C&si=G2XqE-itCFzQt7VE [2]... - Source: Hacker News / 6 months ago

Kahn Academy as well as MIT OCW from Prof. Gill Strang are both excellent resources I have used time and time again. There's nothing wrong with it when you want to get started. I emphasize this to note that you will need to pivot to a textbook for some more formal learning. Source: 11 months ago

Background - So after a bit of researching through this subreddit, I am currently working my way through Linear Algebra and Probability Theory. I also did a stats course as a part of my undergrad, but dont really recall much from that. Besides these, I've also taken a grad intro to AI course, but as you'd expect it covered basic stuff like search, adversarial games, constraint satisfaction, bayesian inference etc. Source: 11 months ago

The MIT OCW by Strang is great. It has problem sets, solutions, and discussion sections in addition to the regular lectures. Source: about 1 year ago

Came here to say this. Go through the actual course methodically though - readings, summaries, problems solutions. It's incredible. Miles ahead of coursera equiv. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/18-06sc-linear-algebra-fall-2011/pages/resource-index/. - Source: Hacker News / about 1 year ago

If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=likeliest%20explanation%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment. - Source: Hacker News / 1 day ago

Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. I understand the reason for repeating these sentiments—it's the same reason why they get upvoted to the top of threads*—but repetition of this kind is what we're most trying to avoid here. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang - Source: Hacker News / about 8 hours ago

I was looking for it in the guidelines. There are a couple of conventions for postings. Consider a bit of prior examples: [https://hn.algolia.com/?q=show+hn]. - Source: Hacker News / 1 day ago

Yeah there are only three stories coming up from the site search https://hn.algolia.com/?q=postgres+clustering only one is semanthically correct, the other pick up the wrong version of clustering (i.e. k-means instead of multi master writes) but yeah if one doesn't test the hard cases, how does one know it preserves semantics :D. - Source: Hacker News / 1 day ago

Like dismissing the work of Feyerabend or Wittgenstein without seemingly having read either: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=0&prefix=true&query=manifest%20nonsense&sort=byDate&type=comment. - Source: Hacker News / 4 days ago