Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 460. page

>>8970817
I can't stop.

>>8970848
why not? would it be painful if you did?

>>8970851
I mean I can't stop.
If I tried to stop, I'd still think about it when trying to sleep.
I have to see how my definitions lead to new theorems.
I need to know why we construct our mathematics system how we do.
I can't sleep.

Math. Not even once.

>>8970563
>>8970563
Because parents r gay

>>8970563

> first animal that walked
> animal that walked
> walked

He had to walk because his dad took his wings.

ITT: Satan was the first

>>8970563
>walked out of the ocean and onto land

That's in all likelihood not what happened. That species was dwelling in shallow waters and evolved to live and move in mud and deal with the tides. Landfall and permanent survivability thereon was a gradual process, not a singular event.

>>8970320
you are a selfish shitbag

>>8970325
how so fuccboi
building habitats isn't hard
there's room for trillions on earth if you used all the millions of sqaure miles properly

Fighting for this is the reason we are alive in the first palce.

write down x of r in terms of r,
Write down the sum
regognize it's some integral
observe how the sum reads like the line in the end
Obseeve that the integral is oneover a half-cycle or so

>>8970240
watch this video, similar problem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3NnRTjWuOg&index=21&list=PLj7p5OoL6vGxe7hIWOKfevOet0e1jOezd

>>8970257

Thanks anon, will have a look :D

>>8970120
A recent linux kernel + GCC toolchain at least

>>8970120
- fidget spinner
- buy apple stocks

>>8970120
We already did this one. All we got out of it was somatic gene therapy and the world wide web. That's why CERN exists. It is a time machine.

>>8969893
>physicists

"Does A belong to set B or C or both" is your question. Nothing imteresting here.

>>8969897
What?

>>8969893
Virtual particles aren't directly observable in the first place. That's why they are virtual.

File: 1471048471276.jpg (48KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x500px

You wouldn't be able to use it to publish results without sharing it.

Secret theorems are a thing of the 1500s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipione_del_Ferro#Diffusion_of_his_work

>>8969873
find a non trivial set which becomes less and less dense in the natruals as it progresses but when you sum up all it's elemnts with one another gives you the set of all naturals of the form 4n+2 for all n

Yeah, I've been sitting on that theory of everything for years. I just don't have time to publish it, and relativity unified with quantum mechanics is no big deal anyway.

It doesn't tarnish and it's cool looking.

This isn't really /sci/, but I'd be interested in knowing why so many cultures independently developed to have gold based economies.

>>8969307
The Egyptians called it the divine metal, believing that the sun god embued it with it's color.

I always thought the idea spread through trade, but that doesn't make sense for civs like the Aztecs, does it?

>>8968861
I really hope so.

>>8968861
hes a historian, not a scientist. What does he know about the future?

>>8968861
I think he means that people you know wont live for more than a century

The post here is relevant:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1220760/what-is-the-difference-between-natural-numbers-and-positive-integers/1220769#1220769

if 0 was natural it wouldn't have taken centuries to even consider it a number

>Is 0 an element of the natural numbers?
If you speak of the set of natural numbers, then it makes no difference. The sets {0,1,2,3,4,5...} and {5,8,9,10,11,12,...} are isomorphic (which for sets just means in bijection).
If you consider the former set with addition, +, then the resulting structure becomes a monoid, a structure with binary operation and unit or neutral element:
0+a=a+0=a.

Whether we have 0 part of the set denoted by N is mere convention

>>8968706
No.

>>8968706
No. Scientific research is for 5 sigma and more (depending on field). You will understand this after your first year in grad school. Other people are better off being wagecucks or /biz/men. Of course you can try, but you'll be irrelevant at best. You can still read research and keep somewhat up to date while being wagecuck.

>>8968706
>>8968749
There are minor fields that only require 3 sigma or 4 sigma but that is simply because there is not enough 5 sigmas around

>he didn't brush his teeth like a good boy

>>8968376
The dose maketh the poison.

ADA says its safe so its safe. Why would they lie?

>>8968268
>Is chemistry actually easy af and a brainlet meme field?
fuck no
sure, there are chemist jobs which literally require vocational equivalent of high school, but if you consider graphene something deserving to be called witchcraft, then you haven't seen advanced chem shit yet.

>>8968268
it really depends where you live and what resources your country provides for research.
Here in croatia chemists are extremely underpaid and there's nothing but to work as a professor in highschools or if you're very good at it you'll maybe get a call to work as a college professor or institute worker. Same thing for biologists and physicists.

one of the more depressing websites out there https://sciencenotes.org/working-as-a-chemist-what-real-chemists-have-to-say/

it's called an IQ test, but if you somehow didn't know that you'll probably fail it

>>8967202
Link faggot and no your facebook IQ test doesn't count as one.

>>8967200
Try getting a PhD and see how far you get.

>>8966117
> their fans are the most insufferable idiots on the planet.
and yet here you are, whining about them while they go about enjoying their lives

>>8966117
I hate that image, first off the guys on the left are nobel laureates, people who had a deep understanding of physics for the time while the left is just a bunch of mediocre scientists, it doesn't reflect the opinion of top scientists today who work on these types of problems, also the guys on the left (barring einstein) weren't public figures, I imagine if you compared public figures from the past till now you'd find that the majority are average or maybe slightly above average scientists, certainly there are exceptions but still.

>>8966127
Yeah, there was probably a lot of dummies in the past, just like there are now.