

Some useful math cheat sheets - take two ... - RiderOfGiraffes
http://math-blog.com/2008/09/20/13-useful-math-cheat-sheets/

======
jimmyjim
A lot of them are of Paul Lamar's, without accreditation. Annoying. They're
available on his original site, minus the spam:
<http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/cheat_table.aspx>

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Interesting. Can you suggest anything we can do to try to redress the balance?
Does it need to be "fixed"?

~~~
makmanalp
OP points out that you're not giving credit to the original authors. I think
it's pretty obvious what you need to do. This is in the standard ethical code
of conduct. Give credit to the original authors by maybe adding the author's
name / website next to the link.

Your message comes off as if you had no idea what was wrong with what you were
doing, even though OP pointed it out. And then you ask if it needs to be
fixed. Are you trolling or something? Jesus.

==============

Edit: So it turns out that it's not RiderOfGiraffes' site, my fault for being
temperamental, and misunderstanding. I just tend to get pissed off at people
not giving credit.

I found the author's e-mail addresses if anyone wants to help set things
right: acangiano at gmail dot com info at antoniocangiano dot com

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
makmanalp says:

    
    
      > OP points out that you're not giving credit to the
      > original authors. I think it's pretty obvious what
      > you need to do. This is in the standard ethical
      > code of conduct. Give credit to the original authors
      > by maybe adding the author's name / website next to
      > the link.
    

WTF? It's not my web page!

It's not me who's not giving credit, it's not me who can change the page, it's
not me who can do anything about it!

    
    
      > Your message comes off as if you had no idea what was
      > wrong with what you were doing, even though OP pointed
      > it out. And then you ask if it needs to be fixed. Are
      > you trolling or something? Jesus
    

It wasn't me doing anything, I'm asking if we, who don't control the page, can
do something to redress the balance.

Check your facts.

I have now submitted the link to the originals as an item in its own right:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2346818>

================================

Edit: OK - email sent to the site owner.

------
mturmon
There is a pretty large number of mistakes in the probability one.

The covariance measures how "linearly related" two RVs are, not "how related".
In the convolution formula for the sum of two RVs, you also need independence
of the RVs for the convolution to be the valid approach. In the description
about uncorrelated, there's a statement that "the reverse holds only for
Gaussian RVs" which is not true, the word "only" needs to be taken out. (The
sheet is trying to say the right thing on that one, it's just a language
issue.) The N(0,1) is called a _standard_ normal distribution, not just a
normal distribution. The last equation on the sheet, for a vector normal
distribution, forgets to invert the covariance matrix that appears in the
exponential.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
I tried to submit this earlier, but submitted one of the links from inside the
page, rather than the page itself - sorry.

