Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 968. page

it's just a set of linear equations. this problem is easy, you should have no problem doing it yourself

>>8604669
My mind and math has never seen eye to eye anon

Please educate me, I beg you

OP here, I figured it out.

>>8604611
You are not though

>>8604621
Think of the difference between humans and apes, we share a lot of our genome with other apes, we are intellectually vastly superior to lower apes, think of a hominid spices that's intellectually superior to us relative to how intellectually superior we are to other lower apes.

>>8604655
But we cant imagine and it doesnt exist so why think about it.

It's fucking dumb because its not like zero gravity would make it harder to swim

Your kicks would push you to one side of the ball and the ball towards the other side. Conservation of momentum. The surface tension is not enough to keep you from surfacing.

>>8604528
well the water would certainly try to form a ball, but I doubt the forces acting on it would be big, we're taking about cohesive forces here.
There is also no reason why you couldn't just swim out.

>>8604522
Compare the representation of (a, b) with (a, a) and (b, a) and you'll see they are all different.

{{a}, {a, a}} = {{a}, {a}} = {{a}}

>>8604522
>From here how do you reduce this to {{a}}?

Not possible. {{a}} and {{a},{a,a}} are two different sets.

Anyways to know that {{a},{a,b}} is (a,b) you simply need to know:

The first element is a if and only if {a} is an element of the ordered pair {{a},{a,b}}

And the second element is b if and only if {(first element, in this case a),b} is an element of the set.

It is as simple as that. Say you have the set {{1},{1,2}}

The first element is the one that such that {element} is in the set, and if we try {2}, that is not in the set. If we try {1} then that is in the set.

Now we know what the first element is so we construct {1,x} and then set x=2 and find that such an element is in the set, therefore that x is our second element. And x=2 so 2 is our second element.

>>8604532
Thanks here is my follow up question:

We have {{1},{1,2}} representing (a,b)

Since the first element is {1} then we have (a,b)

Now we look for {2} in {{1},{1,2}}

but is {2} an element of {1,2} ? this confuses me.

>>8604446

>see kids, you use math all the time in real life

Are you talking about what is the avg volume of one alive ant, or one dead one?

Wtf is antfucking

posting disoriented photos should be a bannable offense

File: 1484496479439-707969941.jpg (3MB, 3120x4160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3120x4160px

Sorry there is supposed to be t+1 in the sigma

File: 14844966096831297566749.jpg (3MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x3120px

Sorry about the photo here it is

>>8604358
are you sure about posting this on a Finnish ski making forum?

are you sure you aren't trying to fuck someone else's up?

>>8604358
Where else ypu putting this survey?

>>8604358
>!!

dropped

>>8604326
>to realize what integral truly are

No, you don't.

>>8604326
what does this even mean?
what did you realize, and how didnt you realize it before?

Integrals are numbers.

>>8604214
>semester 1
>92340 Programming with Java
>semester 2
>92340 Programming with Java

S-H-I-T

>>8604214

Isn't duales Studium like super competitive to get? You're not a failure, leave 4ch.

It's too bad HPC is kinda dead. But you can always get traditional software engineering jobs.

>>8604410
Kinda weird, considering modern scientific programming is done in C++, C, and Fortran. Language supported by the Intel compiler basically. C++, in particular, seems to be the language of choice in Germany.

No biggie though, being in Jülich, they must have free workshops and seminars of scientific C++ and Fortran.

>>8604193
Both people. Anybody can work hard and get straight A's. But not getting straight A's doesn't make you lazy. Now go away.

Which school is she talking about?
If high school, it's sheer laziness.
If university, then understandable to under-perform in some classes.

>>8604223
high school obviously

>>8604107
Proving it all by yourself

Calculus is bullshit based on phony, non-existent real """"""numbers"""""", go and learn some rational trigonometry instead

>>8604107
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcI/IndefiniteIntegrals.aspx

The jews encouraged race mixing

File: Dancing-parrot.gif (2MB, 235x177px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 235x177px

>>8603775
I blame japan

File: claws.jpg (2MB, 2572x2283px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2572x2283px

>>8603775

Emu claws are still pretty bad-ass, but climate changed killed most of the dinos.

Oh! I forgot half of the trolls on here do not believe in:

1. dinosaurs
2. climate change
3. evolution

So you might get some confused people by showing dinosaur pictures on /sci/

>>8603764
fuck i remember solving a simpler version of pic related
reducing the matrix was enough autism and just put the integral into wolfram alpha

File: 1480493623584.jpg (66KB, 689x687px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 689x687px

>>8603770
Pic related is probably more your level, you fucking brainlet

File: tmp_4405-1475453117920-758467558.png (730KB, 952x1061px) Image search: [Google]

730KB, 952x1061px

>>8603778
pls no bully

No because only one timeline exists.

>>8603704
How do we know that? Apparently there are alternate universes?

>>8603715
Space-time is a topological manifold.
>Apparently there are alternate universes?
No.

>>8603606
A political or economical ideology is not inherently or objectively anti-science unless the main stated goal is to destroy or abolish science.

What's more is that it wouldn't be hard to claim that any ideology X is anti-Y based on conjecture. Using such vague generalizations is sloppy thinking, Anon. Anyone with a will/desire to find ideology X guilty of being anti-Y will find ideology X of being anti-Y.

tl;dr: Shit thread, inherently and objectively.

>>8603645
>A political or economical ideology is not inherently or objectively anti-science unless the main stated goal is to destroy or abolish science.
Okay fine.
It's pseudoscience then.

>tl;dr: Shit thread, inherently and objectively.
Yes, let's defend a theory that denies evolution because they happen to be leftist.

How embarrassing for you.

>>8603606
Why would scientists waste their time criticising sociological theory, such as social conflict theory, which is what Marxism is. If you're trained in chemistry, you don't have the foundation of knowledge in politics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, or economics to form a good critique.