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.
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
201 points (96.3% liked)
memes
14835 readers
4781 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Clearly would have one leg per column - joint at the top row
Why are we not considering the matrix as a whole, but as a fucking snake or something?
A matrix is already wearing chaps and needs no additional leg wear.
Wearable for infinite matrices
Both - one leg each way.
C vs Fortran
That is a pant, not pants
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
How would that work? Determinants are calculated recursively
eigenpants