Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 669. page

>>8800574
because medicine still benefits from it. larger sample size of experiments.

>>8800574
because its funny

>>8800574
because they don't actually know. all they have is """statistics""" on recovery rates.

but those stats are meaningless if doctors start routinely rounding peoples' chances down to 0%

>>8800187
>t.brainlet

>>8800187
Why don't Americans like Definite and Indefinite Integrals?

File: commoncoremainphoto (1).jpg (49KB, 757x519px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 757x519px

>>8800190
American "education"

File: confused1.jpg (16KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 250x250px

>real numbers exist

They actually don't

File: 1490244446758.jpg (118KB, 750x1024px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 750x1024px

>>8799999
must be truth

whats the problem with pop science?

File: Live_long_and_prosper.jpg (140KB, 533x365px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 533x365px

DO IT
\begin{align*}
sheldon + cooper &= bazinga!! \\
\end{align*}

>>8799660
pop science never really did anything for me
maybe if they combined it with porn, I'd be able to "learn" something while jacking off

People in the past being way smarter than me bothers me less than people in the present.

I literally got a math minor for my ego.
I knew it wouldnt be useful (it hasnt been) and that I would never make any contributions to the world of maths
But god damn if I don't like to wave it around and have people say "OOOOOH THAT MUST'VE BEEN HARD"

Because in reality, you not existing would make those resources go to brainlets.

What the fuck are you saying nigger. Your question makes no sense.

>>8799335
Which part didn't you understand, retard?

You're trying to turn that into an explicit solution for y where a and b are not under the same radical.

This is exactly what I said in the OP.

>>8799288
I think he means that sqrt(a) + sqrt(b) can not be explicitly solved, which is silly, because it can.

The statement "the sum of rational numbers is rational" is a theorem only for finite sums. Stuff gets wonky when you start dealing with infinities and limits - if you're new to analysis, this stuff will defy your intuitions at first.

So rather than being confused by the fact that the infinite sum of rationals can be irrational, you should instead look at a proof of such a fact and think, "Huh, so the infinite sum of rationals CAN be irrational!"

If your line of reasoning held, then every real number would be rational -- think about decimal expansions.

>>8799192
The limit point of a sequence of rational numbers may not be rational

>>8799185
I would also have given you 0 points for that but for different reasons.

>>8799205
Why would you give me a zero? Explain your reasons

>>8799185

Your answer doesn't make any sense. You showed an identity, then integrated something that was not even what you had. I would have also given you a flat 0. There is nothing logical in what you did

desu bump

stem fags wont reply because they dont want to admit philosophy is king

>>8799134
Philosophy literally is the foundation of thinking. Wat could be lower?
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

an electron hole is a 0
an electron is a 1

imperfect analogy but close enough

>>8798826
Think of it as a collective effect in the case you have something nearly filled with electrons. You can describe the system, instead of using the electrons, by the "absence of electron". And instead of movement of electrons you can talk about the movement of these vacancies.

>>8798826
I'll try to give you the idea OP:

Imagine a circuit made of small circles. All of them are black, representing electrons, except one is hollow, representing the hole.

Now, the electron wants to move toward the hole's "positive charge" (net charge is more positive than the electron, hence it wants to move).

So you move one of your black circles onto the hollow one, and now the "hole" has moved. And then the next electron moves into it. And the next. Moving the hole, but notice that the electrons are moving also, therefore electric current.

Don't try to think that the hole directly creates current. The hole moves electrons, which make the current.

what the hell does this have to do with king crimson

>>8799924
Have you read the manga?

>>8798176
Not to be confused with Bible Black

>>8798211
Or better.
TO Be confused for Bible Black.

>it isn't Bible Black
fuck you OP

>>8797826
Not sure if theyre the most superior, but there is no doubt that they are among the toppest of the top tier.

>>8797826
superior in what way?

File: breaking_bad_hank_schrader.jpg (557KB, 1600x2132px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 1600x2132px

Can confirm, minerals are the shiznit.

>>8797239
Its not easy, but you have to know trig well. Start by defining the distance between the two circles centers and then determine the two arc sections that have a common distance, but different angle from each center.

>>8797239

This is a fun problem: it's do-able if you know a little calculus and trig, and it basically takes a bit of grinding but you can get your answer and easily verify that it is correct.

There are two methods which I have identified:

1. Translate the relevant figure onto the Cartesian plane, with the larger circle being the unit circle (a choice of mine to keep things easy), and the smaller circle being situated in the first quadrant (another cosmetic choice of mine). Find the common points between the two circles by comparing their equations and finding the two values. Look up formulae for circular sectors/circular segments ("caps" of circles), do some trig.

The answer that you get is COMPLEX, having several onerous trig terms (maybe like 8-16 things depending on how you look at it), but IIRC you can actually do this one without calculus.

2. Using the above arbitrary choices of size to represent the two circles, situate the figures (simply speaking, a 45-degree turn from the OP's picture) so that the overall picture is symmetric about the y-axis, with the common points of the two circles resting on the x-axis. There are two functions describing the upper-half circles of each (the lower-half circles are now irrelevant). Further, on the "diagonal" of the OP's figure, there are like 3-5 (possibly) relevant points, which in this treatment now all rest on the y-axis: centers of each circle, maxima(minima?) of each function/upper-half circle. Collect the data on what these points are, together with the two functions which are necessary. Now you are in a position to use elementary integral calculus to find the definite integral, which is precisely the area of the shaded figure. This is the "one-function-'minus'-another-function" formula, which can be evaluated to give something equal to the above.

>>8797239
[math]
-{{6\,r^2-3^{{{3}\over{2}}}\,r^2-2\,\pi\,r^2+12\,r\,x+6\,r\,\sqrt{-
x}\,\sqrt{x+r}-12\,\sqrt{r-x}\,x\,\sqrt{x+r}+12\,\sqrt{-x}\,x\,
\sqrt{x+r}-12\,r^2\,\arcsin \left({{x}\over{r}}\right)+3\,r^2\,
\arcsin \left({{r+2\,x}\over{r}}\right)}\over{24}}
[/math]

File: 20160510_195854.jpg (3MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5312x2988px

>>8796939
Not Cambrian, but pteraspis' are adorable

File: Opabinia_BW.jpg (29KB, 800x651px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 800x651px

This is Opabinia. There is Rule 34 of it.

>>8797023
He said Cambrian or WTF you fucking dunce. Get your garbage out of here.