Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 832. page

File: 1479120633914.jpg (554KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 1500x1000px

>I managed to learn fractions on my own

Guys, it seems we have a real genius among us!

(Bitch, I learned fractions when I was like 7 years old.)

>>8691936
underage b& gtfo

>>8691936
From resources, like textbooks? How else do you think autodidactics learn?

File: singularity.jpg (236KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1000x1500px

No

>>8691806
I don't understand this picture.

Can I get a quick rundown?

>>8691807
Sufficiently advanced technology begets more advenced technology. It's been observed as the exponential growth of computing capabilities from the 80's to about 2015. Singularists argue that there's no upper limit to this sort of growth.

>>8691757
x, 0

>>8691762
I should've specified that I wanted a to be a number, either real or complex (excluding a = x) and a = 0 is trivial.

>>8691757
Well with a=0 g(x)=1 and f(x) = 0 so f'x and g'x are both 0 and growing at the same speed.

>>8691584
yes it is retarded, you aren't studying hard enough
you most likely spend too much time on this site absorbing memes

nice blog, nice meme picture

>>8691648
I think my biggest time sink is partying and being hungover actually

>>8691685
is it easy to meet chicks in grad school

If you want to be a code monkey, yes it doesn't take that much to be a software engineer designing web/phone apps.

If you want to do systems/cryptography/Compilers/compression/graphics or anything that can't be done by pajeet, then you probably want to get a degree in the subject to devote a lot of time to computation/complexity/information theory.

You could orient a math degree around computation/combinatorics if you wanted to but most uni don't offer that much outside of abstract algebra stuff. It would be much easier if you want to do any work in computer science to get a degree in it, and add the math classes you want onto it. Not the other way around.

lol, but good luck getting a job without a degree

also zero mention of frameworks. if you're not going to school, at least learn a framework or two. because more than likely you're going to be a web developer. Ruby on Rails, Laravel, etc...

also no mention of databases, networks, operating systems, or computer architecture

also I don't know what shit school the anon from the post went to, but here the CS students have to take up to calc 3 and differential equations.

>>8691579
>implying web shits are software engineers

hahahah

>>8690360
It's stored as mass and kinetic energy

>>8690759
Kinetic energy is not a thing.

>>8690762
Of course kinetic energy is a thing.

How do I git gud at drawing. Calligraphy is something I will never reach, but at least I would like to be good at precise drawing. I refer to mathematical and phyisical diagrama.

I hated art when I was young because I was so bad at it. Now that I'm in college I'm interested in it but I have no idea how to get good.

File: thinking.png (1MB, 1255x742px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1255x742px

>too intelligent to draw

kind of good at calligraphy though

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

Critics say it lacks corroborating scientific evidence, and is a relic of cold fusion. Critical analysis of the claims have been published in the peer reviewed journals Physics Letters A, New Journal of Physics, Journal of Applied Physics, and Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics. These works note that the proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics, and that the proposed hydrino states are unphysical and incompatible with key equations that have been experimentally verified many times.

In 1999, the Nobel prize winning physicist Philip Warren Anderson said he is "sure that it's a fraud",[6] and in the same year another Nobel prize winning physicist, Steven Chu, called it "extremely unlikely".[7] In 2009, IEEE Spectrum magazine characterized it as a "loser" technology because "[m]ost experts don't believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don't present convincing evidence" and mentioned that Wolfgang Ketterle had said the claims are "nonsense".[8] BLP has announced several times that it was about to deliver commercial products based on Mill's theories but has not delivered a working product.[8]

>>8690217
>criticizes empirical results because conflicts with theory
>discards results in favor of theory

t. Scientists

>>8690224
what results?

>BLP has announced several times that it was about to deliver commercial products based on Mill's theories but has not delivered a working product.[8]

>>8689945
Functional Analysis.

>>8689945
linear algebra

>>8689945

differential geometry

>>8685836
lol what does biology have to do with computers

>bioinformatics

>>8685873
Fuck you

>>8687135
Anon.
It is a fraction.

>>8687135
three semesters? jesus christ

and ye i dont get differentials i just deal with them

>>8687135
It's not a fraction. You can sometimes pretend, this is one of the few examples. Mathematically it's kind of dubious, but it's a nice way to remember the method. Look at it like that, there's is no deeper meaning to it.

How is Q countable?

>>8689288
Every set can be well-order with AoC, so induction "works" even for the reals - however while a "next" relation is existing, you don't get the nice structure of +1 of the natural numbers and it would be useless in proofs (and you can't give a formula for it)

>>8689362
You're a retard

>>8689362
>How is Q countable?
You can map Q to ZxN, and because the cartesian product of countable sets is countable, Q is countable.

>>8689074
When you simply don't fucking know you don't usually call it lying. Physicists are very frank about the current state of cluelessness about what dark energy exactly is. Nobody claims this is the one and definitive truth. It's the best explanation we have and exploration of what dark energy is or might be is still very new. Dark matter is crazy enough on its own.

>>8689087
What I mean is that it seems a little bit ridiculous on the surface to just invent a special type of matter and energy out of thin air so the models match the reality. Even more absurd is the fact that these theoretical concepts need to make up the vast majority of our universe for it to work. So now apparently, our universe is 97% special matter that only exists in theory so we don't need to throw our models of physics in the trash

>>8689074
What's the thing where your picture is from and maybe you'll understand why it is so.

What we know is that there is something that behaves like matter that we can't detect directly holding galaxies together, so we call it dark matter and try to figure out what exactly it is.

We know that the expansion isn't what it should be, considering gravity, so there is some sort of energy pushing things apart, so we call it dark energy and try to figure out what exactly it is.

The basic idea for why we believe in them isn't that complicated, really.

>>8663329
terrence tao

>>8663329
imo Bernoulli.

>>8663329
>implying it wasn't J.W. Gibbs at all times.

Do you even need proof? You just need logic.

More than one sensory input means your attention is being split.

>>8692199
Yeah, this

Even if you're not using the same senses, your brain notices these things and you won't be as productive as studying in silence.

Sometimes I can only get into a "study mode" by starting off with some nice music, but whatever rituals you do in order to get yourself into that mindset are independent of where your concentration goes while actually studying.

>>8692199
>>8692207
>More than one sensory input means your attention is being split.

Imagine being such a STEMcuck that you think you can interpret human action in such a logically reductive way. And I say that as a mathcuck.