Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 2185. page

>>7589945
Ask /g/

>>7589945
I remember, when I first learnt about classes, I saw a yt video where someone was implementing a little rpg, where there are e.g. mother classes like character or item with attributes like name, gold, price, weight,... and inheritant classes like sorceress, warrior, armor, potions,... with other attriutes like stats, wichcraft, protection, healing power, etc. Made it pretty clear what a class is.

>>7589945
Vector spaces, the raster space, build up into lenses and 3d engines

Some kind of invisible energy
It probably blends into the night
Gothic energy, maybe, or shadow energy

Expansion is a property of space (space-time) itself, not of the objects within. Since our laws of motion apply to objects within but not space itself, it's hard to draw similar measurements such as work, force, etc.

dark energy basically

>>7589952
>Gothic energy

Its parents just don't understand it.

You can use them in physics to perform calculations involving infinite sums where it's not obvious that the sums are going to cancel out to produce something finite. The classic example is in QED, where you need to perform summations over all possible paths that a particle can take between two points. Most of those paths cancel out, but without hyperreals, formal proof that they do is rather difficult. For systems with many particles, you're essentially forced to use hyperreals or some equivalent.

>>7589852
Yes. Nonstandard techniques can go way beyond simple calculus stuff, some results have been proved for the first time using this framework in functional analysis, probability, even in algebraic topology.
But you got it wrong, it doesn't eliminate the need for limits, it's just another way of looking at them.

Cool shit you can do with it:
nice characterization of compact sets - a set K is compact if and only if all x in K is infinitely close to a point in K (when I saw this it seemed quite natural to me that balls in infinite dimensional Banach spaces aren't compact)

the Dirac delta function is actually a function and not a distribution - if w is infinitesimal, define f(x) = 0, if |x| > or = w and f(x) = 1/w if |x| < w

defining the real numbers: *Q is the set of hyper-rational numbers, K is the set of limited hyper-rationals and N the set of infinitesimals, then R = K/N

But all this is just applied model theory, and who the fuck doesn't want to learn model theory?

literally everything in mathematics is useless

File: 2.png (150KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1366x768px

>>7589733
>Ctrl + F
>lets begin
>here are the algorithms:

--- 2c
D11 and R13 orientation change (OC) = T5L U5L T5R R5L T5L R5R T5L U5R T5L T5L
forward sledgehammer (from F23 to F15) = F11R R11L F11L R11R
right sledgehammer (from R13 to R5) = R11L F11R R11R F11L
Sune (doesn't get use alone much) = R11R T11R R11L T11R R11R T11R T11R R11L
Sune T11L Sune (changes position of T5 and T23)
Sune T11R (changes position of T5 and 13)

--- 3c
1st 3c series = T11L L11L T11R R11R T11L L11R T11R R11L
2nd 3c series = T7L L7L T7R R7R T7L L7R T7R R7L
L side = T9R R9R T9L L9L T9R R9L T9L L9R
3rd 3c series = T4L L4L T4R R4R T4L L4R T4R R4L
flip (T6 and other 3c piece in Bottom cell) = T4L L6L T4R R4R T4L L6R T4R R4L
L11R flip L11L (flips T4 and T6)
D11R L5L L11R flip L11L L5R D11L (flips T6 and D6)
press2L11R press3T5L flip press3T5R press2L11L (flip T2 and T6)

--- 4c
1st4c = T11L L11L T11R R11R T11L L11R T11R R11L U11L R11R T11L L11L T11R R11L T11L L11R T11R U11R
2nd4c =
T4L L4L T4R R4R T4L L4R T4R R4L T9L
T4L L4L T4R R4R T4L L4R T4R R4L T9R
R4R T4L L4L T4R R4L T4L L4R T4R T9L
R4R T4L L4L T4R R4L T4L L4R T4R T9R
twirl (T1 and T3) =
T4L L4L T4R R4R T4L L4R T4R R4L U11L
R4L T4R L4R T4L R4R T4R L4L T4L U11R

>>7589744
Get your blue 3D cross in the Top cell then rotate it to the Bottom cell.

File: 3.png (147KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1366x768px

>>7589758
Like this.

Switching majors like that isn't all too common, but you're fucking yourself in the ass if you steer away from STEM, anyways. That shit's good money if you're good at it, even if you don't necessarily enjoy it all the time. You might be a slightly happier deadbeat, but a deadbeat's still a deadbeat, you deadbeat.

>>7589737
I honestly want to do something with film. I realize that its a risky thing to do but I would honestly rather waste my time trying and failing then not trying at all. I would settle for being a fucking gaffer honestly.

That brings me to my next question, do any of you STEM people ever regret getting into it for just the money? I know a lot of you probably enjoy it but I am sure there are some cases of people being persuaded into it when they had no real interest in science or math.

This is related to your level of anxiety. The more anxious you are, the more likely you will come to your computer and play games, watch videos, etc. Take "natural" chess players, those who do not study game theory nor chess theory. They are incredibly anxious, they say: If I am going to learn chess, might aswell just play it.

Take less stimulants, take some moderate alcohol instead, meditate, and you will see that physics and mathematics are great. Stop being an anxious ape. Everybody like history, just like every kid like magic.

>>7589627
>not physically connected
You are in a universe with no forces and have sent signals via teleportation.

>>7589632
I mean there's no wire running into the wall or anything. It just looks like a cord strung up on some rings. How does it work /sci/?

>>7589641
>>7589627
goddamn boy, quit being stupid.

File: 567783457.png (322KB, 663x309px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 663x309px

>>7589616

There is no branch that studies something like that. The closest one should be optics

>>7589624
>there is no branch that studies something like that

i'd be willing to bet that not only is this wrong but that there are in fact multiple branches that heavily specialize in this particular subject

>>7589564
99? i dont quite understand what "make change for a dollar" means as im drunk and english is not my first language.

also need to get this out of the way: americunt

>>7589564
129?

>>7589574
>>7589578
not there yet boys

>>7589518
>using 9 with repeats allowed
wat?

make 26,850 by adding 9 of the possible numbers allowing for repeats

not possible, you sure you got the correct numbers?

>>7589498
What year is this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence

File: itshardtoread.png (224KB, 818x962px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 818x962px

>>7589498
Itt: reinventing the wheel.

>>7589509
the current year

File: 1366059908726.jpg (358KB, 791x607px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 791x607px

>>7589242

>>7589242
Relativity does say that if you move an object or piece of information from one place to another faster than light it is effectively time travel, because that object could be observed from some frames of reference to have arrived at its destination before it left.

That said special relativity also specifically says that it is impossible to accelerate any object beyond light speed as it would require infinite energy. General relativity makes room for some possible loop holes that get around this by distorting space to travel FTL (think wormhole) rather than actually accelerating the object in a traditional way.

That said while we can't totally rule out all proposed methods of FTL they probably don't work. When you consider the 3 concepts of relativity, FTL travel, and causality you see that only 2 of the 3 can be true, otherwise they contradict each other, so these are your options:

1. Relativity is true, Causality is true, FTL is false - This is the most well supported option and the opinion of most scientists. Relativity has tons of experimental evidence backing it up and common sense tells us the universe is causal.

2. Relativity is false, Causality is true, FTL is true - Although its unlikely we may one day discovery that relativity is wrong somehow. If that's the case and there exists something other than the universal constant C to maintain causality then maybe FTL travel could work just fine.

3. Relativity is true, Causality is false, FTL is true - This would be really weird but maybe the universe isn't as causal as we think, maybe arriving somewhere before you left is just fine with nature.

>>7589246
>>7589281
Not planning on faster than light, just like even .7 of C would be enough to time travel, even if it's 1:5 hours

oh my god that comic is so funny

its so funny that i can't stop crawling

its so fucking hilarious that i don't know what to do

its on another level of comedic brilliance

its the epitome of hilarity which is unleveled by any other medium of comedy

>>7589133
"Applied math" is a weighted term, couldn't you be more specific?

Raw practice won't necessarily make you good in my opinion. You should never do more than one of the same type of problem unless you really struggled with it.

>>7589142
underrated post fam

That Casio is the comfiest thing in my life

>>7589084
It hardly matters

I use the second type

>>7589084
ti36x is more numerically oriented

>>7589007
buuuuuuuuuuuuumb for pseudo intellectualism bait

>>7589007

the hook, line, and sinker

>>7589007
Facial perception.

> “Oh that's popsci; That well never happen within our lifetimes.”
It's popsci because there is no basis or anything constructive about their mechanics that are discussed in the threads. Someone watches some stupid movie and thinks they are ready to get into a scientific discussion that are supported by facts and logic rather than fantasies and autism.

>>7588950
>facts and logic
I might sound autistic then; aren't almost all current scientific theories technically ideas? Theories aren't set in stone; can't theories be disproven? There is no evidence to prove the existence of Worm-holes nor is their evidence to prove they do exist. But to toss out an unproven concept instead of debating it. Is just not in the best interest of science.

>>7588990
There is no evidence to prove the existence of fairies nor is there any evidence to disprove them, that doesn't make them a topic to be discussed on /sci/