You really don't understand that the illogical sounding results from that website are due to the vectors themselves huh. It has zero to do with the definition of +.
Please, tell me more. I was naively under the impression that normal addition had Abelian group properties[0]. Maybe you can inform me as what the inverse element is. That will get me to change my mind
You’re lost in abstractions. ‘King’ and ‘queen’ and 'man' etc etc aren’t algebraic symbols, they’re mapped to vectors of real numbers. The model learns those mappings, then we just add and subtract numbers element wise. That’s it. You’re giving a group theory lecture about an operation that’s literally just a[i] + b[i]. The semantics come from training, not from some deep mathematical revelation you think everyone missed.
You really don't understand that the illogical sounding results from that website are due to the vectors themselves huh. It has zero to do with the definition of +.
Please, tell me more. I was naively under the impression that normal addition had Abelian group properties[0]. Maybe you can inform me as what the inverse element is. That will get me to change my mind
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelian_group
You’re lost in abstractions. ‘King’ and ‘queen’ and 'man' etc etc aren’t algebraic symbols, they’re mapped to vectors of real numbers. The model learns those mappings, then we just add and subtract numbers element wise. That’s it. You’re giving a group theory lecture about an operation that’s literally just a[i] + b[i]. The semantics come from training, not from some deep mathematical revelation you think everyone missed.