b^logb(x) = x
http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/exponents-logarithms.html
Why do people get so hung up on logarithms?
It's just the inverse function of b^x. If you don't have a firm idea of what functions are (and what an inverse function is), then you need to git gud.
>>8680691
>>8680694
Where is the first place your eye goes to when solving b^logb(x)
I'm guessing I start at the exponent, but where do I go from there?
here's a view into my mathretarded mind
>ok so logb(x) <=> b=x^?
>so b^(b=x^?) wtf
>brain shits itself
I understod the "up/down" proof but I really want to understand it.
>near
>around
>let
Explain why these words should be allowed in proofs and definitions.
because the people who need to use those theorems understand what those words mean, unlike you brainlet
you don't say "let" in proofs?
>>8680655
Why do I keep seeing hate for the word "let" on this board? Is it a non-American thing?
I think I have cracked how AGI will be created. What should I Do?
It's terrifyingly simple.
im a girl btw
keep it a secret and hide.
Hey /sci/ I'm curious about what is the correct order in learning Mathematics?
My friend mentioned that Geo-Alg-trig-Alg2-Cal is correct. Instead of the traditional sense of Alg-Geo-Alg2-Trig. Is this correct?
Also, I purchased several books to help me relearn some basic subjects. Did I do good?
Serge Lang-Geometry (2nd addition)
S.L. Loney-Plane Trigonometry (Scholar's Choice)
Gelfand's-Algebra
Additional Information-
I'm going to college to become an Aerospace Engineer. Starting off at community before transferring over to Embry. (Maybe MIT) Are these books sufficient enough to learn from? (I know I need more) But what else do you guys recommend to help me along my journey? Any help would be appreciated.
>>8680555
You need to know algebra before you can do geometry, at least in the sense you are talking about.
Anyways, the true path is
First order logic
Set Theory
Algebra
Analysis
Geometry
>>8680562
I would have recommended you to not waste your money in books at all but you already did so whatever.
I would like to make or see a Ulam Spiral made with a heptagaon instead of a square. What is the easiest way to make or find one?
Come on nerds I don't want to have to draw one. :(
Can it be done? Heptagons don't tesselate. It can be done square or hexagonal because those tesselate.
>>8680542
2d opengl, with a geometry shader that converts single vertices into squares
>square has 4 lines
>cube has 6 sides
>circle has 1 line
>sphere has 0 sides
explain this shit
>>8680521
>sides
>on a solid
they're called faces you fucking brainlet
>>8680521
It's a line if you can lay your dick upon it nice and smooth. You can't with a sphere for it will mold with the round shape.
>>8680521
If you say that the circle has 1 line then the sphere has 1 face.
Is this book any good? I'm starting Uni and I'm going to do some more rigorous mathematics courses, but it's been about 4 years since high school, so my knowledge is patchy at best.
Is this book a good refresher? Would reading this into Apostle's Calculus (first volume) be a good idea? Anything I'd miss by doing it that way?
This book is literally the best book for intro mathematics that I've read. You won't miss anything by reading it, only gain.
Look through
https://github.com/B3nszy/The-Math-Group/blob/master/Serge%20Lang%20(1971).%20Basic%20Mathematics.%20Reading,%20Mass.,%20Addison-Wesley.pdf
and then look through http://www.matematica.net/portal/e-books/Apostol%20-%20CALCULUS%20-%20VOLUME%201%20-%20One-Variable%20Calculus,%20with%20an%20Introduction%20to%20Linear%20Algebra.pdf and make the decision as to which to buy yourself.
>>8680294
I don't take math people seriously if they have not read this.
>"Dostoevsky gives me more than any scientist, more than Gauss." - Albert Einstein
Why would he say something so stupid?
>>8680187
ugly semite
it's only stupid because you haven't read dostoevsky
why do brainlets on /sci/ take pride in being illiterate?
>>8680193
>>8680187
Dostoevsky isn't even patrician. Literally the edgy teen's tolstoy. Thinking of dostoevsky as an intellectual is one of the most common hallmarks of a pseud.
Hello everyone, I passed Calculus 1 with a solid C, and now I'm struggling in Calculus 2. I took a test on Chapter 7 from the Stewart book (Integration by parts, trig substitution, partial fraction decomposition, improper integrals, and general random methods of integration) and I know I bombed. I studied hard, too. How can a brainlet like myself hope to get up to speed? I'm still going to go to class and do my best, but I have no idea how some people can just look at this stuff and "get it" after about a half-hour of reading a chapter. Any Calculus survival tips?
Do more practice problems. If you can't quite get a concept from the book, look to outside resources:
Examples include:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDesaqWTN6EQ2J4vgsN1HyBeRADEh4Cw-
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD371506BCA23A437
How are you studying? If you're looking over notes and highlighting key points, then off yourself.
If you're doing continuous problems that both assigned and not assigned and still managing to get a C, you should also off yourself.
In brainlet maths such as calc 1 and calc 2, you're either right or you're not. And when you're not, you do everything to make it right. Simple.
>>8679773
You're having trouble now because math in American high schools is a joke. Just put more time (solving problems) than the other guys who received a decent education for the time being and eventually you'll get up to speed.
GET ON MY LEVEL BRAINLETS
>>8679411
BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL
>>8679411
quick rundown on mochizuki?
redpill me on mochizuki
are nonlinear partial differential equations the hardest form of mathematics to study and break down? it seems like there are a shitload of them with no correlation. why is that so? is there an inherent powergrap to understanding just even one equation that it would be considered worthy of a phd thesis and an entire sub-field modelling nature? conceptually there are some relationships but is it just a struggle beyond notions of solving methods?
i see them as pretty important structures that define methods of connecting different areas of mathematics, so i was just curious if this was worthy of further inquiry or if i should just stop and focus on what i currently study which is nowhere near this scope.
i never really thought about it before but PDEs does seem like a really "disjoint" field of study, more like a blanket term for a bunch of crazy-ass mathematical magic tricks
>>8678834
it really does seem that way. is there just no way to look at it as an underlying theory like how functions and their derivatives/integrals have been slapped together under the fundamental theorem of calculus? do we need a fundamental theorem of ᚠᚢᚦᚨᚱᚲ that will change the way we live forever?
>>8678825
lookup numerical analysis, its usually the last class in an engineering degree and it pretty much says "heres a computer that will solve all those de/pde youve been memorizing loool" it teaches how to 'find' the equation you are looking for solution to solve (the computer solves it with numbers plugged in, since there is no "general" solution ever )
If you're floating in the middle of a sphere in 0 gravity, you can throw a tennis ball in any direction and it will bounce straight back to you.
:D
>>8678473
Almost. You can throw a tennis ball radially in any direction and it will bounce straight back to where it was released.
The differences are, your center of gravity may be at the center of the sphere, but your arm would not be, and the line of direction would not point back to the sphere's true center. And, the release of the ball would amount to a small amount f thrust, so you would drift way from the center. So the ball would return but you may not be there (depending on the masses and size of sphere involved).
I know, I know... nitpick.
>>8678473
True, also if you have an empty glass sphere and add ferro fluid along with a solvent you can view a holographic magnetic field using a magnet and a light source.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tklcucbsaXY
>>8678496
That's all true. I think the negative effects would be minimized if the sphere was really large compared to the thrower.
What's the correlation between sexuality and youth; why is pedophilia so rampant?
My understanding is that pregnancy with a minor results in the baby's skull being crushed in the embryo, but pedoshit is still practiced. Could it be a social construct, or does science back an alternate conclusion?
if you diddle the kiddle you should lose your ziddle
Can only explain it with dominance. Had a guy I knew that was shorter than most short women, poor guy. We found his porn folder with nothing but kids, but couldn't really blame the guy as he looked like one himself and any other girl his age would be able to manhandle him.
Hi sci
I'm a guy that doesn't know maths beyond basic operations like adding and dividing.
What textbook should I get that could teach me high school maths so I understand functions and the like?
>>8677489
who told you about functions!!!???
where did you get this information!!!
>>8677495
The news
>>8677489
Elements of Algebra by Euler (https://archive.org/details/ElementsOfAlgebraLeonhardEuler2015)
Algebra by Gelfand and Shen
Functions and Graphs by Gelfand, Glagoleva, and Shnol
The Method of Coordinates by Gelfand, Glagoleva, and Kirillov
Trigonometry by Gelfand and Saul
Basic Mathematics by Lang
A Transition to Advanced Mathematics by Smith, Eggen, and St. Andre
Introduction to Calculus and Analysis, Volumes I&II by Richard Courant and Fritz John
well?
here is my thinking
Ok, so let's start with the easy part.
x+x+x=30 <=> x=10
30+y+y=20 <=> y=5
5+2*z+2*z=9 <=> 4*z=4 <=> z=1
And the fomula is:
Which means, with the values from above, it spells out:
The integral of (10*sin(a))/(2*a) from 0 to infinity.
So here we go:
Let's simplify the inner part of this a bit.
(10*sin(a))/(2*a) <=> (5*sin(a))/a
which means our new formula is:
the integral (5*sin(a))/a from 0 to infinity <=>
5 * the integral (sin(a))/a from 0 to infinity <=>
5* PI/2 ≈ 7.85 If I've done everything properly.
>>8676804
no.