Is the set of finite subsets of N in bijection with N?
no
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_set#Properties
>>8731215
errr now that i read 'finite' subsets i take that back
>>8731211
Whats a finite subset? Sry 4 pleb
okie /sci/ long story short i am dying and must install a specialised DIY unregistered artificial organ in myself to stay alive. The organ will remedy the problem I have, but how will I go about surgically installing it? I need to attach it to a natural organ that is very deep and I doubt a hospital would be willing to comply with such an odd demand.
I have any mechanical tool I could possibly need to do this, but of course no access to anaesthesia and I doubt conventional painkillers will do much for me, how should I go about home surgery?
>implying /sci/ is a reliable source of information
>inb4 suggestions to use windex or that kind of shit
have a beer or two, you will certainly fuck up if you try it while sober
In the almost impossible scenario that you will succeed, you will get an infection and die from that.
>>8731081
same problem here desu help help help
top kek
hello sci i have one question say you have two numbers a and b how can you equate them to equal the bigger number of the two? i have a solution but i was wondering if there is one without abs (a+b+abs(a-b))/2 please post your solution pic unrelated
[eqn]\mathrm{max}\{a,b\}=\lim_{p \rightarrow \infty} \left( \frac{a^p + b^p}{2} \right)^{1/p}[/eqn]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_mean
>>8731069
this doesnt work its always 1 and also i need to use only the a and b not any other variable
>>8731069
that's exactly what OP meant I am sure
>be brainlet 5h semester undergrad in mathematics
>despise numerics and other applied maths
>like topology and algebra but brainlet so have nothing to gain from studying it
What do I do /sci/?
Either I study something I despise to get a job I despise or I go into pure mathematics and work at McDonalds for the rest of my life because pure mathematics is worthless for jobs and brainlets obviously won't become professors.
>>8731051
In the immortal words of Hardy,
>‘I do what I do because it is the one and only thing that I
can do at all well.
If you cannot do mathematics at all well then it is useless to become a mathematicians. Accept your fate and become an applied "mathematician". It is the closest you can ever get but for some it is close enough.
>>8731065
how do people live knowing they will spend most of their life doing something they hate and not kill themselves?
>>8731079
By using the money they get to buy pleasures that can fill the hole.
Gonna be in a Skype call with griffiths in a few minutes, might get a chance to ask him some questions. I'm on mobile so I'll try my best.
ask him how he wrote such a shitty textbook
>>8729876
Ask him why he sneaks God into all his books.
show him your dick on skype and ask him to rate it
>tfw brainlet
>can't learn with a real book for grown adults
>have to plow through 80+ "exercises" per section on stewart books
if you get it don't do the excersizes
>"Hey, this learning method isn't working for me..."
>"Better keep doing it, haha maybe /sci/ is right, I'm a brainlet!"
Stop coming here. Honestly, it's for your health at this point.
>>8729489
Bullshit, OP you need to do at least 10 exercises.
How do I become good at math?
You don't, you are either good at math or you are not good at math.
There is no 'becoming good' at math.
>>8728765
practice, study, dedication and interest.
its really easy t b h but its gonna be hell if math isn't your favourite subject
What are some /sci/ approved drugs that would sharpen my focus and mathematical abilities?
Bonus points if you tell me the ingredients and how to create it in my basement (I prefer it homemade).
Pic related only if you attribute tobacco smoke to Einstein's genius.
>>8728514
bleach?
>>8728514
Glucose
>>8728514
>Einstein
>Genius
i was just making a pb&j sandwich and i was thinking
what if when you mix them together it's like a random displacement of atoms
so with a bunch of random peanut butter atoms and jelly atoms the mixture is probably about 50/50
so if you mix them long enough you have every possible combination of peanut butter atoms and jelly atoms
but some combinations will inevitably lead to different results
like if you mix the peanut butter and jelly after a while they blend together evenly
but if you keep mixing will they always remain mixed evenly??
if you mix for infinite amount of time will they eventually ever go back to being separate
like when you shuffle a deck of cards the same way enough times they go back to being not shuffled
>>8727759
"emulsification"
It would eventually reach every possible state but it would take an absurdly long time. Like, it would take much longer than the lifespan of the universe from creation to heat death before you had the exact same configuration repeated
x! = # of combinations, x = # of atoms
Did you know that an ytterbium crystal does not simply exist in our silly three-dimensional world, but in a fourth dimension as well? Of course you didnt, you silly human.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.popularmechanics.com/science/amp24957/time-crystals/
>>8725323
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/amp24957/time-crystals/
http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/scientists-unveil-new-form-of-matter-time-crystals/
Never heard of this until today, but it is interesting. Is there any practical application for this?
>>8725355
Its is non-equilibrium matter. It represents an entire new class of materials.
Global warming is real and human caused.
The question I am interested in is: what will its effects be? Will they all be bad or will some also be good?
And "good" or "bad" wrt. what system of values?
Lets assume humans burn ALL fossil fuels, all methane in permafrost will be blown into the atmosphere.
So assuming a worst case scenario on greenhouse emissions, what will earth look like (roughly) in 2000 years from now?
>>8723927
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=21m
>>8723927
>Will they all be bad or will some also be good?
Better crops, better climate in general where I live. I wish this global warming bullshit was real.
>>8723927
>Global warming is real and human caused.
[citation needed]
If area measures 2D space and volume measures 3D space, what is the measure of 4D space?
hyper-volume
>>8730873
There isn't 4D space
>>8730881
This.
I know that as the science board, the scientific method is probably lauded. I would agree that it is probably the most important intellectual creation besides religion and philosophy in the history of humanity, but I wanted to hear your thoughts on failure of the scientific method, specifically the scenario where truth occurs but is not observable, and thus no correct conclusion can come from science as we know it.
It seems to me that there are some events or "truths" occurring that are not able to be falsified. For example, there's a video somewhere on YouTube where a guy is giving a talk about how, in the future, the galaxies will spread out due to entropy and space filling, and will be unobservable due to distance. The point is that our future humans ( if they lose record of the existence of other galaxies) will look into the sky, detect no other galaxies out in space, and will come to a conclusion that we are the only galaxy in the universe. They will use the scientific method perfectly and come to an incorrect conclusion.
Is this a failure of the scientific method, and is there anything we can do about this failure? How do we come to know truth if our powers of observation lead us to the wrong conclusions? Is trusting in the scientific method correct, incorrect, or perfectly justifiable if we acknowledge it's limits?
>>8730536
>The point is that our future humans ( if they lose record of the existence of other galaxies) will look into the sky, detect no other galaxies out in space, and will come to a conclusion that we are the only galaxy in the universe. They will use the scientific method perfectly and come to an incorrect conclusion.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
>>8730539
This is true, but I'd bet that many would become galaxy agnostics, acknowledging the possibility but accepting that it's improbable. It's similar to the existence of a deity, it's impossible to prove or disprove existence, but there's no evidence of existence.
>>8730536
That's a large part of the reason methodologists don't use the hypothetico deductive method anymore.
Falsifiability, as a standard of science, has ostensibly been dead for the passed fifty years now, but for some reason that fact hasn't caught up to your average scientist yet.
>college students get 2.5 hr/week of lecture for a 3 credit class
>highschool students get 7.5 hrs/week of lecture
high school is slavepig training camp, if you are smart you teach yourself in college
>>8730243
>2.5 hour a week for 3 credit course
Don't know where you're getting your stats from but this semester I'm averaging 5 hours per credit, not that that statistic means anything
>>8730356
What the fuck? You have 15 hours of lecture a week for one class?
I'm assuming you mean per class, which is still a lot actually. That's a 1 hour 15 min class 4x a week. I have 2 of those a week for a 3 credit class.
What is the worst science and why is it Chemistry?
How do we fix it?
It seems like it needs to be stripped down and rebuilt entirely.
It's 90% memorization, 10% mangling of elementary algebra with obtuse terminology.
Recall that every single time a new topic was introduced in Chemistry, it was prefaced with 15 minutes of excuses about why shit was named backwards or why you "just had to memorize" a table of 40 pieces of shit for just that section.
are you still in high school?
>>8730262
College, actually.
Physics? Easy.
Calculus? Easy.
20 page essays? Easy.
20 minute report on ethics and the federal government? Easy.
Any topic in history ever? Effortless.
Chemistry? SHOULD BE FUCKIN EASY, BECAUSE IT'S ALL JUST MEMORIZATION AND ALGEBRA-I TIER MATH, BUT IT'S NOT, BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS STRUCTURED AND PRESENTED IN THE MOST OBTUSE FUCKING WAY POSSIBLE.
I can triple integrate like a motherfucker. I can figure the rate of change in a digital signal and write a snippet of code that will correct any noise in the line. I've written a paper so good at the undergrad level that it actually got published. I'm in multiple fuckin honor societies and am the goddamn president of my university's STEM club.
And this piece of shit class trips me up PURELY because you have to have someone hold your goddamn hand and explain all of the stupid fuckin details to you as you learn it.
I teach myself. I pick up a damn book or watch 10 videos and write up my own study guides and that's how I learn. And it does not fucking work on Chemistry because the explanations, labels, descriptions, etc HAVE NOTHING TO FUCKIN DO WITH THE ACTUAL WORK IN THE CLASS.
The entire course is bipolar. It says one thing, then does another. And what it says is pure horseshit. Convoluted nonsense.
It's painfully obvious that Chemistry has never been edited or reformed. That they've just been plugging away at experiments like the fucking autistics that chemists always are and building this fuckhuge body of data to memorize instead of learn intuitively, all the while mislabeled and mis-describing shit and misusing math to make it work.
And that's modern Chemistry.
I say, "Fuck it." Torch the fuckin topic and rebuild it. There has to be a better way to teach this piece of shit class than "hurr memorize 200 things, ignore our jargon, and learn these really simple calculations".
>>8730289
Are you on a spectrum?