-
I am still confused how it is even accepted in the USA that a banking website allows you to do whatever to your account by means of some password people are likely to use in many places. Here in Belgium we also have online banking, but you are provided a card reader by your bank to use it.
In order to do anything online to your account, you need to have your card, the card reader and your card’s pin code. Logging in requires you to receive a challenge number from the bank’s website, you slide your card in the reader, enter the challenge number and your pin code in the reader and receive another number that you enter in the bank’s website. You repeat this process when making a payment or something similar.
I know, it’s more cumbersome. I do feel rather secure with it though.
-
-
This doesn’t seem to work for me on Firefox (not that I find that problematic). The cookies don’t get set.
-
Glad to see that happen! It’s been a while now since the kickstarter and as someone who doesn’t follow it closely, it’s good to see they’re still at it and following through on one of the promises they made back then.
I was and still am skeptical of the feasibility of the instant feedback idea they proposed at the time, but if nobody tries to aim for the future we’ll obviously never get there.
Hmm,
“we were looking for the fundamental rules of algebra concisely presented in one place. We couldn’t find such a place, so we made Algebrarules.com”
As I understand it, mathematicians generally develop the “law of algebra” by formulating the laws of behavior of a series of distinct abstract algebraic objects - groups, rings, modules and more exotic things like monads and “algebras”. From these abstract objects, more concrete sets like the integers, the rational numbers, the real numbers, the complex numbers, the quaternions and beyond can be characterized. These latter more concrete sets can also characterized directly with various axioms.
Which is a long way to say if it feels like “the fundamental rules of algebra” aren’t concisely presented in one place, that is because there are really a number of different groups of “fundamental rule”. There is a lot of intersection but they aren’t the same.
Agreed, this feels more like a list of those little things that are useful to know when working out something in the real numbers. Taking for example the first rule they present, it already implies the existence of two binary operations with one being leftdistributive over the other. Rule 13 implies the used operation to be commutative. There’s other assumptions that indicate the authors seem to only consider algebra as one might have seen in highschool.
Which is not a problem per se, if that is the target audience. I see the authors are calling themselves autoditact math enthusiasts and having had formal education in the matter I can only encourage an interest in the subject. I just feel calling it “fundamental rules of algebra” is incorrect, these aren’t.