Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 430. page

Say please.

>>8965202
Do your own research

>>8965216
Please and thank you.
>>8965217
I am, I just want a fresh perspective on things - whether it be from personal experience or not.

probabilistic models are much more interesting than deterministic ones.

>>8965123
Well, what did you expect? You jumped off the math train and hopped into the math cart, going at 3 kilometers per month.

Don't worry, everyone eventually has to do this. Just get yourself some topology text books and at night pretend that you are still undergrad.

You sell out

Do you honestly think you're the first one to think this up? That's kind of sad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

>>8965071
He's thinking Big Bounce, not Big Crunch.

>>8965048
>begins to retract
Thats fucking retarded since dark energy is expanding the universe.

>>8965013
Looks like a rice corn on a tiny black plate

>>8965013
Yes... why wouldn't it be?

>>8965030
fucking christ now I can't not see it

>>8964873
Too easy, do actual logic problems instead.

>>8964873
Ken Ken is way better.

Picross/nonograms are my favorite. I'd really like to get around to trying to write a solver for the micross puzzles from Jupiter's 3DS games.

>>8964826
Yeah, it makes sense. You're right that it's not an eigenfunction but it doesn't need to be if you're just considering a wavefunction frozen in time.

That function is a superposition of the eigenstates of the potential well, if you take the inner product of that function with an eigenstate then you get the amplitude of that eigenstate in the superposition.

So if [math]|\alpha\rangle[/math] index the eigenstates of the well then any wavefunction in that environment can be written as:
[eqn]|\psi\rangle=\sum_\alpha\langle\alpha|\psi\rangle|\alpha\rangle
[/eqn]where, in the case of spatial wavefunctions:
[eqn]\langle\alpha|\psi\rangle=\int^\infty_{-\infty}\alpha^*(x)\psi^*(x)\text{d}x
[/eqn]

>>8966329
oops, the psi shouldn't be starred in that integral

>>8964826
Here is something I don't understand.

Schrodinger's Cat is not a paradox. The particle will be in a super position until it interacts with the poison-dispensing detector. Once it is detected, the wave function collapses. And then the cat is either alive or dead, only one or the other before you even open the box.

Why did Schrodinger not realize this immediately?

>>8964823
There's no video in OP moran.
Just your stupid frog.
Try again.

>>8964828
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhRiLP32qfs

>>8964828
just check the comments of any condensed history video

>>8964698
My chickens have scaly feet too.

>>8964547
Gödel and Turing were right for similar reasons. It's not an inductive or recursive proof, it's a proof by contradiction.

You assume what you think is wrong (that halt(x) can be built and used) and then construct Decide(x) which is

if halt(x) => halt
then cause this machine to loop
if halt(x) == loop
then halt this machine

then run Decide(Decide)

if halt says decide loops, then decide halts.
if halt says decide halts, then decide loops.

A contradiction. Therefore halt(x) can't be built.

>>8964880
There is a parameter missing when you said Decide(Decide(?)). Decide(f(x)) is the inverse if halt(f(x)). So that is why you are relying on recursion here, and as we learned with Russell of all people, recursion cannot be used like this. A machine halts or not with an input x, this is just damn obvious to me. Suppose you were to say halt(halt(f(x)), it would be okay, buy you can never say halt(x) without messing with the parameters.

>>8964547
>The proof is basically recursion

this is where i stopped reading

File: Screen+Shot+2016-04-08+at+9.52.57+PM.png (121KB, 737x683px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 737x683px

>>8964524

>>8964524
if you graph if it's really intuitive. try graphing something retardedly simple such as y=x and it's derivative y=1

>>8964524
>But how it mathematically works?
Mathematically it works by approximating the area under a curve with thin rectangles. The thinner the rectangles, the better approximation you get. When the rectangles are infinitesimally thin with height [math]f(a)[/math] at [math]a[/math], the area of that rectangle is [math]f(x)\cdot ds[/math] where [math]ds[/math] is the infinitesimally thin width. The integral is the sum over all ares of such infinitesimally thin rectangles, that is, the area under the curve.

>how could giving the primitive of an equation can give us the volume?
Read up on the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, which explains why the primitive function of some function can be used to find the area under a function.

>>8964496
Angle of antenna elevation.

>>8964496

That's a penis.

File: tumblr_static_tumblr_static__640.jpg (34KB, 607x341px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 607x341px

>>8964820
>go to communication tech class
>teacher talking about signals and stuff
>one of the graph kind of looks like penis, everyone laughs, one guy chuckled so hard he spat out juice on the floor
>similar graph shows up a week later
>same thing happends, one guy comments it looks like a penis, everyone is fuckng dying from laughter
>fucking normies, REEEEEEEEEEE
>one week later, the same graph shows up again only its smaller
>a surge of inspiration hits me
>yell out, that graph looks like my penis.
>nobody laughs.
>teacher continues to next slide
>mfw.ppt

>>8964485
>Would it be a good idea
No. Because he'd get ripped to shreds for turning up to duty wet.

>>8964490
Let's take he says it is because he is sweating

He could hide a water reservoir in that hairy hat and then have it slowly trickle down when he moves his chin or something.

File: 1468275848074.png (340KB, 1620x854px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1620x854px

>he thinks people have gone to space

>Do I need to be good at solving these sort of problems to be good at higher level mathematics?
no

> Is being good at solving these "translate this English sentence to predicate calculus" type problems essential to being good at higher level mathematics?
no

>Or can I skip this and move to actual proofs?
yes

>>8964426
Thanks. To clarify I'm actually self studying over the summer following a guideline from previous classes. The emphasis on these problems piss me off. I've been doing the same problem types for 5-6 sections now. I want to do fucking actual math not this bullshit.

>>8964426
Why does discrete math books focus 100+ pages on translating sentences to logic then? It's extremely annoying. They don't explain how to do the translations well and it doesn't feel like math to me