I've been working on an AI app for 18 months and almost replied to tell you no, AI cant do that.
And, doh, took a minute, and realized I'm a dunce.* And now there's at least 3 I can think of off the top of my head, not to mention local.
Training a handwriting recognition AI is universally accessible. What a time to be alive.
* If you're dense like me: they're not saying "any AI" as "any handwriting recognition machine learning model you build from that dataset". They're saying as AI as any multimodal LLM, it'll do in context learning on what you upload.
It's easy.... imagine a motor spinning at 10 turns / second... then reversing... it's now turning -10 turns/second.
When you have I and Q (Information and Quadrature of it), you can tell which way a signal is "spinning"... and there are many things you can't do if you don't have both parts of the signal.
If you have two antenna near each other, you can look at the phase and tell where the signal is coming from, in terms of which is closer to the source, by that rotation direction.
Well, if Horowitz and Hill aren't doing it for you I'm not sure what can help, short of trade or professional training.
What kinds of things do you want to be able to fix?
I bought some books of maps of the entire continent I’m on and put them in our cars. Seems like a reasonable emergency thing to do. I’m under no illusion that if some catastrophe happens that takes down the internet and or GPS that we will necessarily survive but would hate to die knowing I could have spent an extra $20-40 bucks and lived.
I do the same also. Local maps books in my area have a lot more roads and very specific off road/service road Information that online maps don't have which is also handy in emergencys. Being evacuated due to forest fires a few times these maps were very helpful to me.
I got "allergic" to computers but I still like algorithms and playing with mathematical/logical structures.
I spent some time in the Australian outback with nothing but a pencil and a block of paper.
I had heard of topology in science fiction books so I decided to study that from scratch.
Soon I had discovered a family of hyperdimensional geometries that led me to an efficient algorithm for the complete resolution of a traveling salesman problem and a non-Boolean logic.
Therefore I think that creativity (work!) in preparation for coding doesn't need anything but a curious mind.
I think it's a matter of convention, and that all the maths I can think of survives the following definitions:
If infinity were to be defined as immeasurably large, and zero as immeasurably small, we would be saying infinity=(some finite number)/0 and 0=(some finite number/infinity
This still leaves us unable to find an definite answer to the multiplication of 0 and infinity, because we might have chosen any 2 finite numbers for the definitions above.
The problem is that the "infinitely small" is already defined, and not equal to zero: The infinitesimal. It is not so simple as defining what the result should be - one needs to make sure this is consistent with the rest of mathematics, or rather, with the mathematics generated by the rest of your axioms and definitions, without resulting in paradox.
If anything, division by zero generates the set of all numbers in your field. That is consistent with division being the operation of finding the multiplicative inverse, but inconsistent with the idea that arithmetic operations have only a single result, rather than a set - but this already exists in finding k-roots of numbers, so it is not completely unreasonable to treat some arithmetic operations as potentially resulting in sets.
