Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 1055. page

>>>/x/

File: aliums.jpg (111KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 960x720px

>>8560167
I agree

>>8560167
>>pyramids
Yah dude like how in the fuck could it be possible for thousands upon thousands of people to haul giant rocks from miles away and stack them on top of each other over the course of several years like that's just fucking impossible right?? hahahah

>>8559785
they're pretty lucrative I think
I like math, so I wouldn't want to become an actuary or a SE, no

>>8559789
I like math too, but I also like money

>>8559792
you don't like math if you're okay with being an actuary or a SE. they don't really do math beyond trivialities.

If the lemmas are that trivial, why bother making them outside the proofs you're using them for?

Lemmas are really only useful for stating technical results so you don't overload your other proofs with cumbersome details, or repeat the same lengthy argument over and over again.

>>8559547
I dunno. Having some of the lemmas I have do help my main theorems flow better, and I also felt a bit awkward just claiming something to be true without offering explanation why mid-proof.

I might just trying reading some more papers in the same topic as mine and just try to do what they do as far as brevity/detail goes.

Try to maintain a colloquial voice in your paper. Try to mimic how richard feynman explains concepts.

Of course stay rigorous in the math, but try to make it sound like a person is behind the paper, not a robot.

I literally can't believe this isn't bait
>number theorists are bad at math
>all their proofs are weak
>I also can't prove things
>Things I expected to be easy are hard, therefore the people who do them are stupid
here's your reply, now please kys

File: Motivation+is+bad+for+you_c82e8c_5944532.jpg (43KB, 800x432px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 800x432px

>>8559172
>freshman trying to go way above their domain
>realise it's way harder than it "should" be

I applaud your efforts, but really, ambition can only do so much.

>>8559207
>>I also can't prove things

I can't prove things because I am standing on their shoulders but they happen to also be midgets.

Anyways, the theorems we know about prime numbers are legitimately very vague. They barely say anything useful, specially when you want to prove something very concrete. It doesn't help that every theorem comes with a disclaimer that says:

>IN AVERAGE
>Only valid for "sufficientely large N". How large? idk
>THERE EXISTS some constant so that this is true. What constant is it? Dooooon't look at me ;^)

>>8559217
Nah man I got this. I just got to put all of my power into this.

>>8558845
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_theory

>>8558845

What first anon said. You also seem to have some chaos in your system.

>>8559296
I wouldn't classify that as chaos, but I can see your point. The number of bifurcations seems to increase drastically after the first one. Anon should slow down his animation or increment by 0.001 after the first bifurcation to see if you can distinguish the higher order ones.

>>8558625
u get ur mum back

>>8558627
oooooooooooohhhh

>>8558625
it will get spaghettified XD

Probably refugees from Mars.

None, ice is too thick for an impactor to penetrate it. Think more along the lines of Ganymede or Callisto. For frozen world type life.

File: reddit.png (719KB, 1586x971px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 1586x971px

>>8557344
Please go back to >>>/reddit/.

My approach would be:
How many numbers could you build without the 4-7 rule?
Its obviously 7*6*5*4*3 = 2520.
And then you calculate how many possibilities there are violating the 4-7 rule, which is the amount of numbers you can build without using 4 or 7.
So: 5*4*3*2*1 = 5! = 120
So the amount would be 2520 - 120 = 2400.
Pls correct me if I am wrong.

>>8556250
2520 that's how many you can build without repeated digits.
The total numbers that can be formed is 7^5

Think of it this way, brainlet:

You have 5 available slots to fill.

For the first slot it must be a 7, so there is one option there
Second slot it must be a 4, so there is one option there.
Third, we now have 7 available options since we have 7 possible options and they can be repeats.
Fourth, we still have 7 options since we can have repeats.
Fifth, same thing.

So now we have 1*1*7*7*7

We can change the order in which the two predetermined digits appear (in the 4th and 5th slot, for the example), but this doesn't change the answer since it's sequential and using multiplication principle.

>>8555994
Span as in, the vector space generated by these vectors in R^2?
Or what

>>8555997
Yeah.

does any of this make any sense?

>>8555994
If you are talking about the span of a set of vectors span{(1,2), (3,6),(4,7),(5,9)} is the complete vector space R^2 because two of the vectors are linearly independent and so have to form a base of R^2.

If you have a span in general, let's say span{v1,v2, ... ,vn} (v1, ..., vn are vectors) which are all linearly independent you can write every element v of this span uniquely as v=a1*v1+ ... + an*vn where a1, ..., an are real numbers.

This is in some way related to ODEs (ordinary differential equation) because the solutions to ODEs can form subvectorspaces but the span in general has very little to do with ODEs and because your equation does not have any integrals or derivatives it is certainly not an ODEs or any other form of differential equation.

>>8554972
Come on smart fellows just a hint

>>8554972
Ask the NSA to use their supercomputers to do it for you.

>>8554972

I think you're really in a bad spot to do this.
Post your bank account, I will transfer a few hundreds to you.

File: god.jpg (116KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 900x900px

we both know there's only one god.

>>8554729
You fucking retard. How can you indoctrinate people with your bullshit that real numbers don't exist and only rationals do?

Rational numbers don't exist. Only natural numbers (without 0) do. Since infinitely many notations for rational numbers exist, checking if two of them are equal requires an infinite amount of work which nobody can do. Find one "construction" of rational numbers that doesn't involve all those unrigorous infinite "sets" (cause sets don't even exist) or some shit.

>>8554742
No.You are retarded.

Whatever you may think about wildbergers views atleast they are not contradictory and if you seriously believe that he is "wrong" you have no Idea about how mathematics works.

Checking that two given rational numbers are equal always requires a finite amount of time.
And he provided a construction for them.

His mathematics are as true as whatever you believe and time will show if his mathematics will give results ot not.

>>8554346
-1+1=0 basically

e^i(pi) = -1

>>8554346
e^{I*pi}=-1

-1+1=0

>>8554103
Depends what you're programming.

>>8554103
You are asking: how athletic you have to be to play sports.

To answer that: if you want to be in Olympics, very athletic. If you want to play basketball in your backyard, not very athletic.

However the demand for people playing sports is so high right now, that even people who can play basketball in their backyard can get paid to play.

>>8554103
>Depends what you're programming.

This, really. We need to break down programming into categories or "industries".

>Mathematical Research

Here is where you need the highest knowlede of mathematics, obviously. You would be literally programming mathematics.

>Simulation

Here you need less knowledge but still a lot. A high level of statistics, calculus, probability theory, etc. Also specifically physics depending on the project but I consider physics to be a subset of calculus and that's already there.

>Mathematics tools programming

This is a field I have the luxury of having first hand experience on but the level of mathematics is not too high. Some understanding of arithmetic, elementary number theory, elementary algebra, statistics and algorithms will be needed. Maybe conside it medium level mathematics.

>General application programming

Understand arithmetic and algebra and you are good to go.

>>8553974
With Memedrive, it will.

>>8553974
This is one of the greatest failure of science. Goes a long way to show how bankrupt and worthless this approach to reality is.

>>8553997
>People unironically believe this.

Kek.

>>8552641
exceedingly short reviews of a fair number of math texts at various levels
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicmath.htm

>>8552641
SICP is free online and somewhat dated. It's a worthwhile endeavor, but only theoretically. Meanwhile Axler is the kind of book you'll have no use for whatsoever after you've worked through it. It's a good book, but one to get from the library.

For Logic, Enderton's Introduction to Mathematical Logic is where it's at. For combinatorics, Concrete Mathematics is where it's at. For Algebra, Dummit and Foote is where it's at.

>>8552641
SICP is too shallow to be worth your time. If you're not a highschool student or dumbass freshman (or a /g/fag who's deeply impressed by the slightest abstraction), get something with more meat.