The best math/sci joke?

Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread images: 47

Anonymous

The best math/sci joke? 2015-12-29 15:54:04 Post No. 7750561

[Report] Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]

The best math/sci joke? 2015-12-29 15:54:04 Post No. 7750561

[Report] Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]

File: 6tag-419666346-890882814706519313_419666346(1).jpg (118 KB, 640x640)
Image search:
[iqdb]
[SauceNao]
[Google]

118 KB, 640x640

The best math/sci joke?

>>

>>7750561

I'm not going to lie, I laughed.

>>

>The best math/sci joke?

this board

>>

>>7750655

I have a few like those

>>

>>

>>7750727

lel thats my post :^)

>>

>>7750561

0.999... = 1

>>

>>7750841

prove it

>>

>>7750855

0.9999... = x

9.9999... = 10x

9.9999... - 0.9999... = 10x - x

9 = 9x

1 = x

>>

>>7750561

Taylor Swift is like the Fast Fourier Transform

>>

A physicist, a chemist and a statistician get called into the dean's office. When they enter they see that the dean is not there and the waste paper basket is on fire.

The physicist says: "The problem is too much heat, if we pour water on the fire it will cool it and the fire will go out."

The chemist shakes his head and says: "The problem is a chemical reaction between the paper and the air, if we put a blanket on it that will smother the fire and stop the reaction."

The statistician is running around the room lighting more fires, the chemist and the physicist yell: "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?"

The statistician calmly replies: "I am getting a larger sample size."

>>

>>7750941

The one in the right is Frederick the Great, not Euler.

>>

>>7750737

9/10

>>

>>7750994

A physicist and mathematician are on lunch break together. All of a sudden, a fire breaks out at the coffee machine.

The physicist jumps into action, runs to the other room, grabs a bucket and fills it with water. He dumps the water on the coffee machine, and puts out the fire. The rest of the day proceeds uneventfully.

The next week, the same physicist and mathematician are on lunch break together again. Another fire breaks out, this time it's the microwave.

The mathematician promptly jumps into action.

He runs into the other room, grabs a bucket, and runs over and hands it to his friend.

He says "There! We've reduced this problem to one we already know how to solve."

>>

>>7750561

>>7750578

Back to 9gag with your "jokes".

>>

>Neil DeGrasse Tyson walks into a bar

>The bartender says "we dont server your people here"

>"Because Im black?"

>"Yes, now fuck off nigger!"

>>

>>7750742

baka senpai

>>

>>7751877

>we dont server

Fuck off nigger.

>>

>>7751863

lol'd

Two statisticians are on an airplane. During the flight, there's an explosion which rocks the plane. The captain comes on the loudspeaker and says "Don't panic everyone. We have lost one of our four engines, but this plane is designed to fly just fine without it. However it will add an extra 15 minutes to our landing time." The statisticians adjust their schedules and relax for the rest of the flight.

A short while later the plane lurches again. The captain says "Everyone please remain calm. We have lost another engine, but the plane can fly just fine without it. However, it will add another hour onto our landing time." The statisticians adjust their schedules and relax for the rest of the flight.

A while later, yet another explosion rocks the plane. The captain comes over the speakers, "We have lost a third engine, but do not panic. Our last engine can safely get us to our destination. It will, however, add two hours to the flight time.

At this point one statistician looks to the other and says "I hope that last engine doesn't go, well be up here forever!"

>>

>>7750734

Gold

>>

two chemists walk into a bar. the first orders an h2o. the second orders and h2o(2) too. He dies

>>

Russian mathematician takes a job at Harvard. In addition to doing research he is assigned to teach freshman calculus. The mathematician goes to the department head the weekend before classes start and asks, What should I cover in the course? Oh, not too much, the department head replies, start off with sequences and limits, talk about different forms of continuity, move on to integration and maybe some material on series. After the first day of class, the department head meets with the mathematician again and asks how it went. Great, great! the mathematician replies. But now tell me, what do we cover on the second day of class?

>>

>>7750841

But it's right. It's obvious that the proof of that U see everywhere isn't correct, but there's another proof that correct is!

>>

Here's a more esoteric one. Jean-Pierre Serre and Robert Langlands are sitting at a conference during a break. A graduate student approaches them and asks, "Do you two know anything about representation theory?"

"Maybe," Serre replies.

"Can I ask you a stupid question, then?"

And Langlands says, "Well you have asked one already..."

Now the real question is: which one?

>>

There's no undergraduate linear algebra course at the University of Chicago. Legend has it that when they tried to implement one, they found out at the end of the first quarter that the professor has taught everything over the quaternions...

>>

Hardy goes to visit Ramanujan in the hospital and mentions the number of his taxi was 14. "I'm afraid that riding in a cab with such a dull number is an ill omen," Hardy says. And Ramanujan replies, "No, not at all; 14 is a very interesting number. It is the only one which can be written as the product of 7 and 2 in two different ways."

>>

Why is science humor so cringey?

>>

>>7750994

An architecht takes a mathematician to see a building he has designed. When they get to the building, they see someone entering and two people coming out. The architecht then tells the mathematician that the building is designed for at most 200 people at once, and the mathematician asks what is the minimum amount of people the building is meant for. The architecht is confused and the mathematician explains that the building has now -1 people in it.

>>

>>7752003

kek'd

>>

>>7751945

9/10

>>

>>7750941

top kek

>>

>>7752003

lel

>>

/r/ing that post on "how to fix elementary school"

>>

>>7752019

fucking kekd

>>

so there are two cauchy sequences who want to watch the Limitless movie at the theatre, but it was complete

> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHA

>HHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>

>>7752005

don't get it, please enlighten me.

>>

>>7752476

someone please post it

>>

>>7750941

>ntnu fag

>>

>>7752596

Looks like a plumbus

>>

>>7750888

step 3 is illegal you idiot

>>

>>7752023

Because people who understand them are "too busy" for human-human interaction

>>

>>7752829

Explain why it is illegal

>>

This board in and of itself is a joke.

>>

>>7752023

>Why is science humor so cringey?

Same reason puns are. It's knowledge you have applied in a way you never thought to. In the case of puns it's words and their meanings, in the case of science humor it's Taylor expansions and the Mean Value Theorem.

>>

>>7752829

You are illegal you idiot.

>>

>>7752829

If that is illegal, then subtracting .99999... from .99999... is illegal. That means that if you subtrct a rational number from itself, instead of 0 you have an illegal operation.

9x = 10x x = 9.99999... - .99999...

= 9 + .99999... - .99999...

=9

So do you really claim that it is illegal to subtract a number from itself to get zero/

>>

>>7753056

>if you subtrct a rational number from itself

You haven't yet shown that 0.999... is rational. The limit of rationals can be something non-rational.

>>

>>7753064

[math]0.9999 = 9 \cdot \frac19[/math]

fucking nigger

>>

>>7753105

>circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works

You cannot assume what you want to prove.

>>

If I were OP and people would start discussing 0.999=1, I would have deleted my thread pretty soon

>>

>>7752829

it really isn't

>>

>>7753064

>You haven't yet shown that 0.999... is rational

its obviously rational you retard

1/3+1/3+1/3=0.999...

>>

>>7753064

Are you under the mistaken idea that the dots can be replaced by any numbers whatsoever?

The dots are supposed to represent that the '9's are repeated forever.

>>

>>7753148

If it has a sequence of one or more digits that infinitely repeats after some point, then it IS a rational number.

Thus,

.99999... is rational

.999998181818181... is rational (81 repeats)

5.57129834123422422422422422... is rational (422 repeats)

If the digits do not repeat, then it is irrational.

>>

>>7753148

>has absolutely no idea what makes a rational number

watch a video or two on khanacademy faggot

>>

>>7753144

That doesn't matter, since you're gonna have to replace them with 1 eventually.

>>

>>7753159

>If it has a sequence of one or more digits that infinitely repeats after some point, then it IS a rational number.

Why?

>>

>>7753166

Huh? What do you mean?

Are you saying that the decimal representations of all numbers end in 1? Are you saying that the decimal representations of all numbers must contain a 1 somewhere?

What do you mean by that absurd statement?

>>

>>7750737

best

wasn't actually a troll, just a clueless /fa/ poster

>>

>>7753175

The /fa/ggot was right though, he looks retarded in that outfit.

>>

>>7753167

Rational numbers are those numbers which can be expressed as one integer divided by another integer. Whenever you do the division, you will always find a repeating sequence of numbers unless you don't know how to divide.

And it is relatively straight forward to convert any decimal representation that has a repeating tail to one integer divided by another.

Every decimal expression of a number with a repeating tail is rational. Every decimal expression without a repeating tail is irrational.

Note that the repeating tail may all be 0. For example, .25 = .25000....

>>

>>7753159

I disagree. The notion of "infinite" numbers is mathematically flawed and leads to contradictions whenever you try to define it rigorously. Numbers were invented for counting. This means they have to be finite. You cannot do math with something that is infinite.

>>

>>7750941

>mistaking Frederick the Great for Euler

The guy who made this is an idiot.

>>

>>7753181

>Whenever you do the division, you will always find a repeating sequence of numbers

What do you mean "do the division"? The number x divided by the number y is the (equivalence class of) fraction x/y. This is how division is defined. Nothing "infinite repeating" here.

>>

>>7753185

Flunked arithmetic, didn't you?

>>

>>7752829

hau

>>

>>7753182

>You cannot do math with something that is infinite.

You might as well get up and go back to being a school crossing guard.

>>

>>7753189

Division by x is the multiplication with the inverse of x. No arithmetic needed. Did you fail abstract algebra?

>>

>>7753193

The concept of infinity is self-contradictory and only leads to fallacies. You don't need infinity to construct math. Watch Wildburger's videos.

>>

>>7753196

>Watch Wildburger's videos.

One of those, huh? I should have known.

>>

>>7753196

>you don't need infinity to construct math

End behavior of functions disagree with your statement.

Values increase without bound all the time

>>

>>7752433

why are you so cringey?

>>

>>7753196

>You don't need infinity to construct math

Without infinity, it is just arithmetic.

>>

>>7753562

This is what happens when you outsource your programming to Raj

>>

>>7753196

Y= X/(X-3)

Now graph the point at X=3 without using infinity.

>>

>>7753623

No problem. Do you even projective geometry?

>>

>>7753638

Nope. I'm interested thought, care to enlighten me?

>>

>>7753154

Man I was there for that thread, that's still the funniest thing I've ever seen lurking here.

>>

>>7753690

Oh god I saved the thumbnail

>>

>>7753623

The limit does not exist.

at [math]x=3[/math] you get [math]y=\frac{3}{3-3}=\frac{3}{0}[/math]

>>

>>7753697

>Engineering

>Too young to understand

Top kek

>>

>>7753562

that is some serious Bangladesh coding there

>>

>>7753562

i don't understand why the need for a "for" command -- why can't the guy just take x and multiply by .01?

double x = 1234;

System.out.println(x*.01)

>>

>>7753788

thatsthejoke.jpg

>>

>>7753148

>That's a claim and not a proof.

Isn't every sum of rationals rational?

>>

>>7754026

not necessarily. ie, the sum of the infinite series 1/n2, for n existing in the natural domain (which are all rational,) is π2/6, which is irrational.

>>

>>7754056

**π^2 /6

>>

>>7751033

A common mistake.

>>

>>7753708

There are two limits depending on which side you are taking the limit from.

>>

>>7754026

Obviously, every sum of a finite number of rationals is rational. That isn't the case for an infinite number of rationals, though.

>>

A theist rationalist Humanities Professor was teaching a class on Plato, known non-logical positivist

”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Platop and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Newton!”

At this moment, a emotionless, Vulcan, logical positivist STEM major who had watched all episodes of Bill Nye the science guy and understood the necessity of Empiricism and fully supported everything Neil deGrasse Tyson ever said held up a copy of Phenomenology of the Spirit.

”How does of this crap make sense?”

The arrogant professor smirked quite post-modernly and smugly replied “Of course not! Truth is entirely subjective, you stupid STEMfag”

”Wrong. The basis for truth is to test something 5,000 times with double blind experiments in a lab. If I can't see it....than it isn't there! ”

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He stormed out of the room crying tears, which just shows that he was still being controlled by his emotions. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, some gay Frenchman, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist philosophy professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself denied causality having read Hume.

The students applauded and all changed their degrees to STEM, all of them who would fail to find employment as the market was oversaturated and accepted Sam Harris as their Lord and Saviour. An eagle named “Empiricism” flew into the room and perched atop a copy of principia de mathematica and shed a tear on the chalk. The Bill Nye the Science Guy theme was sung several times, and Steven Hawking himself showed up to explain how science has replaced philosophy.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of an existentialist crisis.

>>

>>7753183

I was there when it was made, it was the day before the exam and we just did a quick google image search. It's weird that it comes up on sci fairly often.

Of coures we're doing computer science, so we are bona fide retards

>>

>>7754400

what a tale

>>

>>7753148

I hope 4 u ur only pretending :)

>>

>>7752005

A few new graduate students are sitting in on a conference on algebraic geometry. They are trying their best to follow what is being presented, but ultimately the material is overwhelming and the students are discussing amongst themselves, trying to determine what a 'variety' is. Serre, who was in attendance turns around and says somewhat annoyed, 'a variety is a reduced scheme of finite type over a field'.

>>

>>7752492

best picture on /sci/

>>

>>7754496

Wait 22 seconds of orgasm?

What?

How?

Mine last like 10, tops.

>>

>>7751999

nice trips, stale joke

>>

>>7750888

Step two is illegal

>>

>>7753056

You are so far away from solving that problem.

>>

>>7753708

Try projecting it onto a sphere or something.

>>

>>7751863

Are you sure the reduction is correct? Correct reduction would be for example removing the flaming object from microwave and throwing it into the coffee machine. That way the physician can put out the coffee machine.

>>

>>7754532

Obviously.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get it, but it is quite true that .9999... is rational and that rational number is '1'.

>>

>>7754519

It is solved.

.9999... is rational and it is the number '1'.

>>

>>7754514

Please tell us exactly why it is illegal?

The fact is that it is not illegal.

If x = 0.99999... where the 9's repeat forever, then 10x = 9.9999... where the 9's repeat forever. And there is nothing illegal about that.

>>

>>7754542

I found this one online

>A physicist and a mathematician are in the faculty lounge having a cup of coffee when, for no apparent reason, the coffee machine bursts into flames. The physicist rushes over to the wall, grabs a fire extinguisher, and fights the fire successfully.

The same time next week, the same pair are there drinking coffee and talking shop when the new coffee machine goes on fire. The mathematician stands up, fetches the fire extinguisher, and hands it to the physicist, thereby reducing the problem to one already solved...

>>

>>7754550

Do you work for the ministry of truth or something?

1=2 right guise mod0 rite?

>>

>>7754552

Spectral operators degrade over infinity. You can't just change its magnitude and do algebra with it. Think about what you're doing to the manifold... just think about it.

>>

>>7754566

You really should try to learn some math.

>>

>>7754550

You solved nothing.

Just use 0.9999... = lim sum_{i=1}^n 9/10^i

and apply geometric convergence.

>>

>>7754568

Found some buzzwords you don't understand, didn't you?

>>

>>7754574

You should try some meth. You're future in math is questionable if you don't understand that joke.

Maybe you should try methamatics? Maybe you can jerk off with one hand while working on trig on the other.

>>

>>7754568

>Look mom, I used words !

>>

>>7754577

You're talking to yourself aren't you?

The R(x,0) is a manifold you dipshit.

>>

>>7754580

*data harvesting* *please explain more*

Spectral operators include regular operators used on an infinite dimensional space. I'm not going to explain myself a bit more. I'd hate to make such an ingrate any smarter.

>>

>>7754587

Are you really claiming that the real line is "infinite dimensional space"?

>>

>>7754591

It acts that way, yea. It has a special geometry based off its.... wait a minute why am I telling you anything??

>>

>>7754591

Of course this is assuming you allow fractional space and infinitely huge numbers and the like. I mean you are using an algebra and you ARE using operators to prove your .99999... thing you got there.

>>

>>7754612

I mean holy shit you guys actually think division and multiplication are inverses of each other??

Ha-ha-ahahhaha

>>

>>7754591

Respond to me you smart alack little shit! Tell me how they are inverses so I can laugh about it.

>>

>>7754628

You aren't worth a response. Have fun little boy.

>>

>>7754557

Well, that is not a reduction too. For any reduction f() from set M to M' has to be true:

Forall x: x \in M iff f(x) \in M'

You can define the set M' as all the situations when the coffee machine is on fire and fire extinguisher is in its place. Physicist can solve that problems.

Physicist kniws how to find an extinguisher. Joke could go this way (to be mathematically sound, entertainment value aside): There is no fire extinguisher where physicist grabbed it from last time, so mathematician goes to his car and places is where it was the last time. Then the physicist can solve the problem exactly like the last time, therefore the problem got reduced to situation when a coffee machine is on fire and fire extinguisher is in its place.

Do you want a reduction joke should look like?

>How does a mathematician makes tea when you give him emty cup?

He takes the cup, boils water, pours boiling water in cup, and places a teabag in.

>How does a mathematician makes tea when you give him cup of boiling water?

He takes the cup, pours the water out, and goes from there as usual.

>>

>>7754755

This one isn't humor its just true.

>>

>>7754400

Quality

>>

>>7754755

More like any of the girls that tried to get into a STEM field dropped out for gender studies

>>

>>7754755

Source?

>>

>>7750888

>0.9999... = x

>9.9999... = 10x

this already makes no sense

>>

It's not a good joke, but a classic. Going after Erdős's remark that "A mathematician is a machine that turns coffee into theorems", a co-mathematician is a machine that turns co-theorems into ffee.

>>

A math joke eh? Okay I'll give it a try.

Why could the bicycle not stand up?

Because it was two tired.

>>

Three logicians walk into a bar. Bartender asks, "Would all three of you like a drink?"

First logician says, "I don't know."

Second logician says, "I don't know."

Third logician says, "Yes."

>>

>>7754514

>>7752829

>>7753056

All math is retarded. You can literally make anything into anything else using math. How? Because everything in math is a variable already.

Theorem: All numbers are equal.

Proof: Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b. Then

a + b = t

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

a - t/2 = b - t/2

a = b

So all numbers are the same, and math is pointless.

>>

>>7753154

lol I can see the problem there. The arrows are on the outside instead of the inside like all the other dimensions. That is something you are not supposed to do.

Having it both ways can really fuck with things when reading it, as shown in that thread. lol

>>

>>7755201

a - t/2 does not equal b - t/2

For any positive x, sqrt(x) = +/- n

>>

>>7755222

>Because everything in math is a variable already.

You can make up any shit you want, bro.

>>

>>7755201

You're fucking retarded

>>

>>7755164

One of my teachers (engineering) is a hot young female, she didnt know what pondus was when we expressed results in kp. She cant answer basic questions about the problems she copy/resolves in the chalkboard, she copies them wrong, uploads questionnaires with wrong answers and doesnt bother to take them down when told about it.

But shes hot and this is Spain.

We have many hot chicks graduating every year here...

>>

>>7755201

>a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

>(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

???

>>

>>7755273

Foil it, simpleton.

>>

>>7755275

Look at this guy. Foil is fucking retarded, it disobeys logic.

>>

>>7755284

>this math is stupid

Now he gets it.

>>

>>7754509

Meth.

>>

>>7755201

t/2 is the average of a and b.

wlog (without loss of generality), assume a>b. Then a-t/2 = t/2 -b

When you are taking the square roots, your mistake is that in one case you have the positive root and in the other you have the negative root. If you take the positive root of each and a>b, then you would have

a - t/2 = t/2 - b

or

a + b = t.

>>

>>7755201

pack it up guys, math has been disprove, time to go home

>>

>>7755243

>pondus

>An old English measure of weight, usually of wool, perhaps equal to 3 cloves.

Haha, wat?

>>

>>

>>7755184

Holy fuck. Nothing has changed. NOTHING.

>>

>>7750561

Implying this isn't what Taylor Swift thinks of when someone calls her name.

>>

What happens when you put a chemical engineer, an electrical engineer and a mechanical engineer in the same room ?

>>

>>7750855

1) two numbers are different iff there is a third number in between them (easy to prove)

2) there is no number in between 0.9999... and 1

QED

>>

>>7755634

gay sex

>>

>>7753154

That thread is why I still lurk this board.

>>

>>7755634

You get the laughingstock of /sci/

>>

>>7755210

>That is something you are not supposed to do.

idiet

>>

>>7752003

Wasn't this from Paul Halmos' automathography?

>>

>>7752829

And who are you, the math police?

>>

>>7754758

>Radius/Ulna

>built like the Humerus

ok pal

>>

>>7755455

Showing why it failes to work is "taking it seroius"?

What a bozo!

>>

>>7755296

I doubt most people take meth anon.

>>

>>7755243

>she didnt know what pondus was

surely worst type of person

>>

>>7755189

>mfw reading this thread when this is my first time on /sci/

>>

>>7750888

I think you get garbage results when you try to calculate infinite sums.

>>

>>7756509

That math is legitimate. In any case, .999... = 1.

>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

>>

>>7750561

If I wanted to hear a math joke, I'd ask you to post the highest math class you ever took.

>>

>>7754568

You're wrong and he's right. I've seen that manipulation in a few algebra textbooks actually.

>>

>>7756511

Quite right.

Also, if a and b are reals and a != b, then there exists a distict real number c between the two. I've yet to see anyone claim that they have a number between 1 and .99999... .

>>

>>7753784

I like the idea of using Bangladesh as an adjective.

>>

>>7755678

>cartoon

delicious meme, muy bueno

>>

File: tumblr_nmzvijYAgh1sszkooo1_r1_500.png (44 KB, 500x148)
Image search:
[iqdb]
[SauceNao]
[Google]

44 KB, 500x148

not really a joke but its sorta funny.

>>

>>7757112

lol

>>

>>7757112

converse fallacy

>>

>>7757125

Pardon?

>>

>>7754568

Nice words kiddo, now step aside for the real math.

Let us construct Cauchy sequences for real numbers 0.999.. and 1 as sequences of rational numbers 0, 0.9, 0.99,... and 1, 1, 1,...

The Cauchy construction of the reals says that these sequences are equivalent (i.e. they define the same real number) iff the difference of the two sequences, i.e. 1, 0.1, 0.01, ..., converges to zero. As that is evidently true, 0.999... = 1.

>>

>>7753355

>finite groups

>arithmetic

>>

>>7753167

Because you can express any repeating series as a ratio-

an arbitrary example could be

.123123123123.....

which is

[math]

\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{123}{10^{3n}}

[/math]

and by the evaluation of a geometric series

[math]

\frac{123}{1000} * \frac{1}{1-.001} = \frac{123}{999}

[/math]

>>

>>

>>7757112

This is great, but I dislike the final line. It ruins the succinctness. Fixed.

>>

>>7750578

I don't get it.

>>

>>7758093

I like the last line

>>

>>7758093

I like the final like. If anything, the first line is kinda shit.

>>

>>7757112

amazing

>>

>>7758093

final line makes it better, actually.

>>

>>7755634

something productive gets done?

>>

>>7755201

You fucked it up by picking The extraneous root, you fucking kike!

a - t/2 = -b + t/2

Works fine and doesn't lead to that contradiction

>>

>>7758093

I agree that explicitly mentioning the theorem is plebian

>>

>>7753154

>still depressed no one got my sketchup joke

>>

>>7751874

kek'd

>>

>>7755634

Elon Musk asks you to stop wasting his time.

>>

>>7753562

I get that he's using a retardedly convoluted way to get his answer, but where is the .00002 coming from? I'm a super-novice coder myself.

>>

>>

>>7750994

>>7751863

A physicist and mathematician are having a conversation and the physicist says, I feel sorry for those engineers. The mathematician asks why, and the physicist replies we only have to remember one version of Ohm's Law, V=IR, those engineers have to know all three, V=Ir, I=V/R, and R=V/I.

>>

>>7753154

I thought it was the congruent symbol.

>>

>>7759248

Hah.

>>

>>

>>7759324

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

>>

>>7759239

Because it is more direct.

What it basically shows is that .9999... if a rational number that is represented by 1.

Furthermore, the technique used is one that can be used to find the fractional representation of any rational number given it's decimal representation.

For example, suppose you wanted to know the fractional representation of .2222...

x=.2222...

10x=2.2222...

10x-x = 2.2222... - .2222...

9x = 2

x = 2/9

Or the fractional representation of .121212... (12 repeats).

x = .121212...

100x = 12.121212...

100x - x = 12.121212... - .121212...

99x = 12

x = 12/99 = 4/33

>>

>>7759228

Unless I'm mistaken, nothing.

It's just that to be entirely rigorous, you'd probably want to include a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Which is far too difficult for such a trivial problem, hence 'to kill a fly with a sledgehammer' - using the grand machinery of the FLT for something so small is overkill to the point that mathematicians find it funny, like killing a fly with a sledgehammer.

>>

>>7755169

>Source?

Best I can do for you is the upper right corner of the comic itself. Sorry.

>>

>>7759600

All three of them want a drink.

>>

>>7759654

>>7759645

So it's supposed to be funny because all of them want a drink, i.e. the only reason they would say "don't know" is if they didn't know the other people didn't want a drink?

My mind didn't jump to that, I just thought they could be referring to themselves in that "hmm, not sure if I should be drinking today".

I presumed the third person didn't have sufficient information to make his claim.

>>

>>7757125

OH FUCK MY BAD, my autism kicked in and only just realized that the last line was a joke and not an actual statement

hence the converse fallacy due to the use of the predicates differing from the original statement

>>

>>7759222

I'll bite

Look up floating point numbers

>>

>>7759222

floating point number shenanigans. Always use double

>>

>>7759654

More precisely:

If the first logician didn't want a drink then the answer would have been "No". So he wanted a drink but didn't know whether the other two wanted a drink. (They obviously had not discussed this ahead of time.)

The second logician knows that if the first logician didn't want a drink, he would have said "no". Therefore, the first logician wanted a drink. Like the first logician, if he didn't want a drink he would say "no". So he did want a drink but he still didn't know if the third logician wanted a drink.

The third logician knew that if either of the first two logicians didn't want a drink then their answer would have been "no". Therefore, they wanted a drink. If the third logician says "no", then the first two logicians want drinks, but not him. If he says "yes" then all three want drinks.

>>

>>7759739

What if the first two didn't only not know if all three of them wanted the drink but they also didn't know if they themselves wanted the drinks, maybe they had an exam the next day and weren't sure if having a couple glasses was a good idea.

What gives the third logician the right to answer yes for the first two? Was he trying to get them drunk?

>>

>>7759334

> It's decimal representation

Pham...

>>

>>7759702

You don't seem to understand it any better than the guy you're replying to. Doubles have the same issue, in principle.

>>

Why did the mathematician name his dog Cauchy?

Because he left a residue at every pole.

>>

>>7752019

what?

7x2 and 2x7 ?

>>

>>7759958

/sci/ in one post

>>

>>7756447

that's not a reference tho

but i get what you mean

>>

>>7759768

The question was whether all three wanted a drink. If any of the three did not want a drink, then his answer would have been "no". After all, if he didn't want a drink, then "all three wanted a drink" would have been false.

If the first logician did not want a drink, then he would have had all the information he needed to say "no". The same for the second logician. Thus, since the first two logicians did not answer "no", it was clear to the third logician that they did want a drink.

>>

>>7759797

Doubles are made specifically to get around that problem

>>

>>7750737

Is that the Fields medal?

>>

1=0,999....

2=1,999....

3=2,999....

what,s wrong?

It's obvious. Are you all retarded?

>>

>>7750994

The statistician is sitting quietly with no worries. The chemist and the physicist yell: "Help us extinguish this fire!"

The statistician calmly replies: "What fire? All I see is a statistical anomaly which can be safely ignored"

>>

>>7750941

Gets me every time

>>

>>7759222

>What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic

>http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/jean-michel.muller/goldberg.pdf

>>

>>7750855

You can't. It's by DEFINITION ONLY.

Think about it. For them to be equal you need a equivalence relation defined over the decimals. Can you guess what the equivalence relation is?

>>

>>7752829

Arrest me.

>>

>>7752005

At least get it right, it's Langlands and Borel

>>

A mathemetician, a philosopher, and an engineer are all asked to a gymnasium.

There are two lines of people on opposite sides of the gym, on one side, all males, on the other side, all females.

The three are told that every ten seconds, the men will move half the distance between them and the women, and then they are asked how long until the men and women finally meet.

The mathematician replies: The function is infinitely recursive, they will never meet.

The philosopher recounts zenos paradox of the tortise, and says that they will never meet because it will take an infinite amount of time.

The engineer responds: "Well, in about a minute and a half, they will be close enough for all practical purposes"

>>

A mathemetician, a statistician, and a logician are all riding in a car through a countryside, and they spot a black sheep in a field.

The mathemetician exclaims: "Ha, black sheep DO exist"

The statictician replies: "At least ONE black sheep exists"

The logician replies: "All we know, is that in that field, there is a sheep that is black on at least one side."

>>

Two chemists walk into a bar.

The first chemist says to the bartender: I'll have an H20

The second chemist says to the bartender: I'll have an H20 too

The first chemist drinks, the second vomits.

>>

>>7762481

did you rephrase that punchline?

Obviously both drink.

>>

>>7760483

Doubles are made specifically to have twice the size of float and they still have rounding problems

>>

A computer science major is told by his mom to go out and get some stuff for her.

She says "I need you to pick up a gallon of milk, and if they have eggs, get a dozen."

Half an hour later he comes back with12 gallons of milk.

The mother asks "Why did you get 12 gallons of milk?"

The son says "They had eggs."

>>

>>7762671

I laughed, even though the joke was obvious in the second line.

Btw. it reminds me of those Zizek tales.

>Waiter, I'd like a coffee, but without cream.

>I'm sorry, we don't have cream, but I can offer you a coffee without milk.

Or, among another line this dialog, I don't recall the movie

>Woman to man after date: Do you want to come to my place for a few more minutes and drink some coffee

>Man: I don't trink coffee

>Woman: No problem, I don't have any.

>>

Two chemists are at a hotel bar. The first chemist orders H2O. The waiter immediately recognizes the man as Professor Neutron. He says "Oh, for you sir, no charge!" The second chemist orders H2O "too". The waiter says, "Oh, I'm sorry sir, that won't be possible." The chemist says, "Why not?" The waiter says, "Because you're black." Just then the Asian theoretical physicist watching the conversation take place smiles because he realized his time machine had worked and he'd reverted the country into the mid-1900's. He figured he'd go check into the hotel and celebrate his success before he would be arrested for violating the laws of relativity. A gum-chewing teenage bellhop rudely asks if the man has any bags. The professor screams "Don't you know who I am fool? I am Doctor Ton.. Doctor Pho Ton. And no I don't because I'm traveling light. Now run away, I need to hurry before I'm trapped in prism."

>>

>>7762690

Happy to zizek memes in /sci/

Fucking coca cola

>>

>>7755175

Multiplying both sides with 10...

>>

>>7750561

fuck taylor series.

>>

>>7751874

whew, lad. I shed a tear.

>>

>>7762912

Not understanding anything about mathematics.

>>

Does p = np?

It does only if p=0, or n=1.

For people who don't know this problem.

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP

>>

>>7762481

HAHA

ITS FUNNY BECAUSE THE SECOND CHEMIST VOMITIED AFTER DRINKING HIS WATER BECAUSE HE IMMEDIATELY REMEMBERED THIS PIECE OF SHIT JOKE

>>

>>7754615

On a field you can define the inverse of a number, denoted x^(-1), then x*x^(-1)=id, bla bla bla. Retard.

>>

>>

>>7762474

You got it wrong. The mathematician obviously wouldn't generalize like that.

The order in which people say those three things should be something like engineer, physicist, mathematician.

>>

>>7752731

yes

>>

>>7751897

probably because it's funny

>>

>>7754758

> Keli

kek

>>

>>7759675

If guy 1 didn't want a drink, all three would not have desired a drink, and both guy 1 and guy 2 would have to say no. However, since they want a drink, they only need confirmatiok from the others, and they say I don't know, meaning guy three hss sufficient info. Sorry, I'm shit at explaining in English

>>

>>7757130

MEMECEPTION

https://youtu.be/xfbweoXX4wI

>>

>>7755210

The rule is you must put both arrows.

When the dimensions on the drawing are too small, and they cant fit, you put them outside.

faget

>>

>>7750655

I feel terrible for thinking that 1G means flat groove position.

>>

>>7751897

epic lelzzzzz!!!

>>

>>7752492

holy shit

>>

>>7755654

>there is no number in between 0.9999... and 1

This is not obvious if it's true. Prove it.

>>

>>7766095

Not the anon you replies to, but that seems like an easy contradiction proof.

Suppose such a number exists, call it y, it will either have to be a terminating decimal or not a terminating decimal.

If it is terminating then it will be smaller than 0.999... (that's obvious, right?)

If it is not terminating, then consider its last digit, if it is not 9, then it is smaller than 0.999... because 0.999...-y will look something like 0.00002999999 (again, obvious)

If it is 9, then 0.999...-y will either equal 0 if y=0.999... (which isn't what we want) or the number will have to be blatantly less than y, because it'll have to be something like 0.989999.

>>

>>7766110

>not terminating, then consider its last digit

>last digit

You has written a sheet.

>>

>>7752476

go back to reddit lol

>>

>>7766123

He probably just means the number that repeats.

like 0.9718281..., there the 'last number', as it repeats infinitely is 1.

Either way, his proof is correct. There is no number between 1 and 0.99999... and as he said, this should be obvious. Mainly because the sum of 0.9999999... + x, where x is any number > 0, will be > 1.

>>

>>7766095

For all [math]\varepsilon>0[/math], note that [math]0.999\dotsc+\epsilon>1[/math]. But, in general, if $[math]x \ne y[/math], then [math]x+\frac{y-x}{2} < y[/math].

>>

>>7766649

That should probably say if [math]x<y[/math], but you get the idea.

>>

>>7766649

how do you do all this neat symbol shit

>>

>>7766669

I want you to open quick reply, and then check this corner.

>>

>>7766669

[math]*insert latex code here[\math]

Replace that back slash with a forward slash. If you don't know latex, google it. I think there's some shit in the sticky too (which you should have read, so fuck you).

>>

>>7766680

The TEX thing? It doesn't work ;_;

>>

>>7766649

but you just assumed what you were trying to prove.

>>

>>7766682

>(which you should have read, so fuck you).

I did, I make a point of reading stickies

I must have missed it, sorry

>>

>>7766684

No, I assumed it was false and showed that leads to a contradiction. I just wasn't very explicit about what I was doing.

>>

>>7762710

underrated post

>>

>>7768175

why is funny?

>>

>>7750888

Use sums:

$$ 0.9999...= sum_{n=1}^{\infty} 9. 10^{-n} = 1/(10-9) $$

>>

>>7757112

Top zoz

>>

>>7769226

you think it's going to be racist but it's actually just a bunch of shitty puns.

>>

>>7753690

Through squinting, I can read that it says 'Gee Banarch, how come your axioms let you eat two identical copies of an original sphere.' Pretty cringey tbqh.

>>

Potassium and Oxygen went on a date

it went OK

>>

>>7760516

? Is this what being meta-trolled feels like?

>>

>>7770293

Wouldn't it have gone KO? Don't you usually put the metal first?

>>

>>7750734

Because they weren't there.

>>

>>7759248

10/10

I'm definitely using this one of some of my engie friends.

>>

File: Screenshot - 12102015 - 12:15:00 AM.png (47 KB, 151x162)
Image search:
[iqdb]
[SauceNao]
[Google]

47 KB, 151x162

>>7753714

11/10

>>

>>7754713

Supreme autism

>>

>>7752019

I hate you but I laughed

>>

>>7750561

how many molecules are in a mole of guacamole?

avocado's number

>>

>>7755634

homosexual activities

>>

>>7760203

>Thus, since the first two logicians did not answer "no", it was clear to the third logician that they did want a drink.

If you believe this is valid logic then:

If you come up to me and ask me if I'd like to have sex with you and I don't reply with a "no" but just say, "I don't know?", you logically have my consent? It would be clear that I want sex?

>>

I'm proud of you /sci, it took nearly the entire thread before we finally dropped the engineer jokes

>>

>>7760483

He IS using double you eejit

>>

>>7759222

>>7759702

>>7759797

>>7760483

>>7762646

>>7771484

Simplifying, our decimal system works like

123.456

That means we have 1*10^2 and 2*10^1 and 3*10^0 and 4 *10^-1 and 5 *10^-2 and 6*10^-3

Computers don't know decimal though so they use binary like

110,01

That means 1*2^2 and 1*2^1 and 0 *2^0 and 0 *2^-1 and 1*2^-2

Now something like 0.23 can't be converted to binary without rounding so the Computer finds the closest thing it can and saves it as 1*2^-2

But 1*2^-2 means 1/4, which converts to 0.25

>>

>>7750888

>I'm intelligent

>[math] \frac{1}{9} [/math] =0.1111... is exact and not just a very good approximation

Pick one

>>

>>7759334

DECIMAL REPRESENTATION.

It's so close and yet you still don't get it, the decimal representation is AS CLOSE AS WE CAN GET to the value in a non-fractional form. You can say [math]\frac{1}{9}[/math] is about 0.111..., but the actual value is 1 out of 9

>>

>>7760516

Let's look at it logically for a second. Would (0.999...)×2 not be equal to 1.999...8?

>>

>>7754532

not that anon, but I think what he's getting at is in order to prove that 0.999... is rational than what are the 2 integers a and b (b not 0) st: a/b = 0.999

9/9 = 1 doesn't work. and 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 leads us to 3/3 = 1 doesn't prove 0.999... is an element of Q.

>>

>>7766649

So if x=0.9999... and y=1, [math]\frac{1-0.9999...}{2}=\frac{0.000...01}{2}[/math] which means there is a value between 0.999... and 1

>>

>>7771637

Where the fuck are you getting that ...8 from? You're turning a neverending sequence of nines into one that has a final number

>>

>>7771637

How is that looking at it "logically"?

It's actually quite the opposite.

>>

>>

>>7771855

But there is no "last" 9 in 0.999...

Do you also think there are more Rationals than Natural numbers?

>>

>>7771410

Is this bait? Clearly you don't belong here if really misunderstood that joke.

>>

>>7753154

I feel with that guy

We already have the upper case i, the lower case L and that pipe thingy I,l, and |.

Lazy faggots that can't write a normal 1. I mean, where's the problem? That little tiny line on the top is too much work.

The Brits invented this, didn't they?

>>

>>

>>7771855

In the representation 1.999... there is no last 9 to multiply by 2.

If you round 1.999.... off after some arbitrary number of digits, then you do have a last 9 and when you multiply by 2 the last digit would be an 8. But then, 1.999... is not equal to 1.999... rounded off after some arbitrary number of digits.

Thread images: 47

Thread DB ID: 395723

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.

If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's