Does anyone have a physic version ?

>>6851402

>triple integrals not at the very bottom

Son, I am dissapoint.

>>6851402
>chaos theory and lie algebras nearly at the genius gap

ppfffffttbbbfbfbtbttttt hahahahahahahaha

>>6851402
Why have millenium prize problems written and then just list them out?

>>6851427

And why only some? He missed Navier-Stokes, and Poincaré is already solved.

Wow, whoever made this is a pleb or a troll.

Fuck the physics version, we need a new and better version of this.

>>6851402
My math major friends were doing de Rham cohomology stuff when they were sophomores, this sounds like it's cute at best.

>>6852287
> de Rham cohomology
> working over R and C
its really the most trivial cohomology theory. and sheaf or group cohomology is far harder.

>>6851693
>Wow, whoever made this is a pleb or a troll.

I would put myself just above the "Serious Math" gap but there are plenty of things below it that I not only understand but use easily, e.g. Real Analysis, Complex Analysis, non-Euclidean Geometry, Boolean Algebra, Control Theory and, while they aren't on that list, the famous Triple Integrals.

>>6851402

>one-time pad decryption

that's not mathematics, that's literaly witchcraft.

>>6852317
>literaly

>>6852328

yeah, I made a typo, my argument is invalid.

>>6852334
If you would care to notice, I didn't fix the typo. It doesn't matter, correct the typo, look up the word and tell me your argument makes sense

>>6852340

one-time pads (if used correctly) cannot be decrypted, therefore cracking it would require breaking the laws of reality, therefore it is witchcraft

>>6852295

Triple integrals are a way's above the Serious Math threshold.

>>6852350
But, who is to say that there aren't laws of reality for witchcraft, only we don't/can't know them yet?

>Random Sequence Extrapolation

>>6852355
>Triple integrals are a way's above the Serious Math threshold.

Do these words mean something different than I expect? English is not my first language, but we ARE just referring to solving field equations in 3D, right?

>>6852317
>that's not mathematics, that's literaly witchcraft.

Depends on how they're generated. They DID break some one-time pads during WWII due to the secretaries not liking X and Z and so having a non-zero chance of throwing those balls back, breaking the perfect randomness.

>>6852360

>>/x/

>>6852370
yeah but if you read the wiki article it explains that the generator was following a predictable pattern of creating information even though it was creating a one-time pad

>>6852372
I'm just following your line of reasoning bro

>>6852370

>Do these words mean something different than I expect? English is not my first language, but we ARE just referring to solving field equations in 3D, right?
Yeah, I don't know why it's all the way up there either. Even le reddit agrees.

>>6852370

>Depends on how they're generated

well, a true one-time pad should be random generated, it is obvious that any non-random encryption can be broken in principle.

>>6851402
No matter how complex and advanced a subject xyz, with time approaching infinity the probability of encountering some stuck-up asshole trying to belittle it as "babby's first xyz" approaches 1.

>>6852387
This is the most basic law of the universe. No way around it, just like you can't go FTL or escape a black hole

>>6852390
>you can't go FTL
What if two objects are exactly on a collision course, one with velocity 0.9999...c and the other -0.9999...c? Subtracting the velocities you get 1.9999...c.

>escape a black hole
A human would die even before crossing the event horizon, let alone before approaching the singularity at the center. Beyond the event horizon any motion (no matter whether matter or energy) can only be towards the singularity, and even when approaching the event horizon from the outside anything to move more or less away from the center of the black hole would reach relativistic velocities. That clearly means that living organisms (and also machinery or circuitry) would certainly not be able to function in a certain vicinity of the black hole.

File: 1414863054627.png (82KB, 261x241px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 261x241px

>>6852387
>babby's first babby's

>>6852409
It's all relative, anon. Like cousins

>>6852390
>can't go FTL or escape a black hole
The very existence of a black hole's event horizon implies that speeds > c exist at least thoretically (specifically, the singularity's escape velocity becomes > c inside the event horizon.

Also, the existence of horizon which limits our observable universe implies that the relative speed between us and certain very far galaxies has exceeded c at some point, as a result of which they are now outside our observability horizon.

>>6852412
Ok, so c cannot be exceeded against an inertial frame of reference, but two objects may reach a relative velocity of up to 1.9999...c. Is that correct?

>>6852418
up to 2c
two photons emitted in opposite directions from the same object will each have a velocity of c, and a relative velocity of 2c

>>6852432
>up to 2c
With photons up to 2c, that's clear. The 1.9999...c was referring to any objects having non-zero mass.

>>6852317
this.

I'm too spooky for this.

>>6851402
>calculus right above trig functions
>branches of calculus below calculus
What the fuck.

>>6852409
>>6852413
>>6852432
>>6852435

All of you are incorrect. The relative velocities in all those cases are less than c except the photons, which are c. This is the most fundamental concept in relativity.

>>6852409
>velocity
>negative

what?

>>6851407
I was about to say the same thing.

>>6852750

do you realise velocity isn't the same as speed and there is no problem with a negative velocity?

although it still doesn't change the fact that the post you are responding to is probably just a retarded troll

>>6852409
>A human would die even before crossing the event horizon

depends on the size, you could easily survive crossing the event horizon of a supermassive black hole and survive for quite some time before the tides spaghettify you.

>>6851402
>fractals
>an:2*2pi

>>6851402
Someone should post the template, then we can work on it.

>>6852771
Did you even read the post you're replying to? How would you survive if anything within your body and around you can only move towards the point at the center? No organism, machine, or circuitry can possibly function under such condition, because nothing can possibly interoperate in any way.

>>6852769
What would make him a "retarded troll"? Everything he said seems reasonable.

>>6852646
Then how do you explain the fact that the visible universe is only a fraction of the whole? The galaxies which are beyond our observation horizon must clearly be moving away from us at a relative speed greater than c.

Also, If two objects are on a collision course with a speed of, say, 0.9c, then how can their relative speed be less than c?

>>6852750
>what are vectors

>>6852799

>What if two objects are exactly on a collision course, one with velocity 0.9999...c and the other -0.9999...c? Subtracting the velocities you get 1.9999...c.


it's trollphysics meme-tier. It sounds reasonable only if you haven't been to school since the XIX century. In case you are not trolling: when you reach relativistic speeds you cannot use simple addition, you need Lorentz transformation.

>>6852381
It's le ebin meme. EVerytime someone asks for the most difficult type of maths, you're expected to answer triple integral.

Another acceptable answer is Barnett identities.

OP's pic is good, by the way. As a troll. There are too many things wrong with it to bother listing them all, but the very idea of ranking fields of maths by difficulty is itself retarded.

I ownder if there's a legit way to use this "trench" concept.

>>6852350
The problem here is that "used correctly" implies "having a truly random generator". So it's not exactly witchcraft, rather, it only works properly with witchcraft.

>>6852794

>How would you survive if anything within your body and around you can only move towards the point at the center?

things within your body can still move however the fuck they want relative to each other just as easily as they do everywhere in the universe - as long as the tidal forces don't get too strong.

>>6852806

Both of your intuitions in this post are wrong, but it's too annoying to explain why on mobile. Research "metric expansion of space" and "special relativity" for your first and second questions, respectively. Nothing moves > c relative to anything else. It seems paradoxical but it isn't.

>>6852827
>The problem here is that "used correctly" implies "having a truly random generator".

well, that is the definition of a one-time pad. If it's not truly random because of some practical/engineering reasons then the problem is no longer mathematical, therefore it doesn't belong in this picture.

>>6852839
Some parts of the universe *must* have moved away from us at a relative speed greater than c, otherwise there's no possiblity the visible universe could actually be smaller than the whole universe.

Besides, Lawrence Krauss says that this is possible and permitted by general relativity (skip to 51 min 07 sec):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs

So he's full of shit?

>>6851402
>implying countijg is easy
Shit image didn't continue.

>>6852857
>>6852857

Nope, you've got some flawed assumptions in that reasoning. The universe is not an explosion, its size is not limited by travel (in fact it could be infinite in size), and expansion is not movement.

no idea what most of these are

>>6852867
So Laurence Krauss is full of shit when he literally says that general relativity permits galaxies to be moving away from each other at speeds greater than light?

Why does every "nothing can exceed c in any way, hurr" smartpants evade to give a clear-cut answer to the simple question asking how it is possible that the visible universe is smaller than the whole of it?

>>6851402
>one-time pad decryption
from a mathematical point of view, it's trivial. it's just that in practice, it's not feasible...

Adam Riess came to my Uni a few hours ago, he touched on the topic that the distance could grow or is growing at such a rate that light can't keep up.

>>6852881
Special relativity is a local simplification. You can have recession velocities greater than the speed of light, these are regularly observed, however this is not he relative velocity you see in SR.

>>6852850
The problem is, if you accept to ground your algorithms on premises that can't be realized practically, you've solved a lot of problems, except that you haven't really solved anything.

For instance it makes sense to say that we know how to tell when a number is prime or not (Wilson's theorem allows it, for instance). But the algorithm generated by Wilson is too bad, complexity-wise, to be of any reasonable use. So it makes more sense yet to say that we have an idea of how to find when a number is prime or not, but the problem is still wide open.

It's a bad idea to sidestep problems on the grounds that they are the concern of an engineer or a computer scientist rather than that of a mathematician. If a problem can be adressed mathematics-wise (for instance here, if we can find an encryption algorithm that's good but doesn't rely on randomization, or works well even with imperfect randomization), it should be.

Having a uncrackable encryption method that can never be implemented is fun, but ultimately it's not getting to the core of the problem.

>>6851402
Fucking absurd.
Reminds of that bullshit deep web trench. Anyone who believes that you MUST be a GENIUS in order to understand that level of math is a literal retard.

>>6852881

I can't watch videos now, but I wouldn't expect him to be "full of shit" so much as oversimplifying a difficult idea for a broad audience to the point where it's misleading. I'm certainly not claiming I know more than him, so calm your appeals to authority.

As for how, why do you think it's impossible? If you think it's because stuff has to travel "outwards" from " the location of the big bang," you can stop right there, since there is no such thing. The big bang happened everywhere at once.

Finally, please look up metric expansion. Don't think of receding galaxies as moving away, because they're not. Rather, more space is being added between us.

File: mathstrench.jpg (447KB, 1300x3900px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1300x3900px

>>6851407

>>6851693
these images are ALWAYS troll images numbnuts

>>6852881
Other anon is absolutely right, the other galaxies are not "moving" away from us at the speed of light, rather the actual spacetime around them is expanding the distance between us, which can and does happen at a "speed" faster than the speed of light. I hesitate to call it a "speed" because a speed is measured with a constant length metric, obviously if you change the length metric constantly, you have something different.

Junior physics major here, just what I understand about GR>

>>6853087
You're right sir.

File: 1414971718093.jpg (235KB, 1100x3300px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1100x3300px

>>6851402

>>6852885
>from a mathematical point of view, it's trivial. it's just that in practice, it's not feasible...

I challenge you to show a trivial algorithm for decrypting an arbitrary message encrypted by one-time pad. You're allowed to be as computationally complex as you want since you've admitted to the infeasibility.

"Random sequence extrapolation"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>6851402
its possible to decript one time pad????

how???

dont know about physic one but someone made a music related one

Things about this list
1-This list is about 2deepness4u and not about quality
2-Being level 6 doenst mean the thing is 3 times more deeper4u than a level 2 stuff. It just means its more deeper4u than tier 5 and less deeper4u than tier 7.

>Level 1
Post-grunge
Pop-punk
Eurodance
Disco
Italo-disco
Eurobeat
Freestyle
Country music
House (excluding house sub-genres I say on other levels)
Synthpop
R&B
Hip-Hop
Casiocore
Electro house
"Euro trance" (excluding dutch trance)
Contemporary folk (problably would split into different levels if I knew what are the genres that contemporary folk have)


>Level 2
Nu-metal
Hard Rock
Dutch Trance
Filter House
Hard House
Tech House
Acid House
Happy Hardcore
Neue Deutsche Härte
Vocal Jazz
Punk Rock (excluding pop-punk, grindcore, noise rock, powerviolence, hardcore)

>Level 3
Dubstep
Chiptunes
Jungle
MicroHouse
Brostep
Psy trance
Classic trance
Progressive Rock
Abstract Hip-hop
Illbient

>Level 4
Power metal
Heavy Metal
Dungeon Synth
Winter Synth
Progressive Metal
Math Rock
Hardcore (Punk Rock one)
Metalcore
Ambient breaks
Worldbeat
Post-rock
Stoner Doom Metal
Industrial Metal
Trip Hop
Ambient House
Smooth Jazz

>>6854352
>level 5
Acid jazz
Hardstyle
Jumpstyle
Martial Industrial
Classical Music
New Age
Thrash metal
Folk Metal
Minimalism
Classic Industrial
Traditional Folk
IDM
Techno
Powerviolence
Digital Hardcore
Softer Hardcore (electronic music one) subgenres (excluding happy hardcore)
Traditional Doom metal

>Level 6
Sludge Doom Metal
Death/doom Metal
Noise Rock
Grindcore
Death Metal
Black metal
Avant-garde Jazz
Terrorcore
Ambient Techno
Ambient Psy
Ambient Trance
Ethereal Dakwave


>Level 7
Funeral Doom Metal
Ambient
Glitch
Speedcore
Power noise

>Level 8
Free Jazz
Breakcore
Musique Concrete
Drone Doom Metal

>Level 9
Dark Ambient
Field Recordings

>Level 10
Power Electronics
Onkyo

>Level infinite
Lowercase
Harsh Noise

PS: if you really want to know your tier, make a list with the genres you like alot of songs,, the one with lowest tier is your tier, so someone that like post-grunge and harsh noise will have a tier of infinite

>>6854354
>new age lv 5
>any metal above 4
>hardcore above 3
come on mate are you even trying?

>>6854351
No.

>>6854352
>trance before dubstep
>psytrance in the same level as brostep
and jumpstyle is pretty much the same genre as hardstyle from before 2008.

Also,
>Lowercase
I literally died laughing when I looked that up on youtube. Way 2deep4me.

>Serious Math
>There is nothing

>>6854411
>come on mate are you even trying?

Read his post again - it's not about how good it is or how hard it is to play, it is about how deep it is.

File: 1415098147295.jpg (145KB, 1100x3300px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1100x3300px

best contribution I can make, sorry for loss of gradients not very good at this.

>>6854354
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPxkUC09l1g

>harsh noise

well, never fucking again. I'm gonna go back a good seven levels and stay in psy trance where I belong.

>>6855438
haha yea, that was faggot and the neckbeards 12yo boy band tier

>>6854352
Do you even know what eurobeat is?
How is it less obscure than fucking punk?
I'm not even gonna read the reast of the list

>>6852317

No it isn't. A sufficiently advanced AI would be able to figure out the plaintext from long runs of 0s.

>>6854354
I've made lowercase and harsh noise, what do I win?

>>6855986

No. If the key is random generated it is impossible to decrypt, no matter how much computing power you have.

>>6855768
edgy college fucks
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wgA9L5TN5M

>>6851402
Why the fuck are radians that low down? They're a fucking easy concept.

>>6856013

If you have quantum computing you can go back in time

>>6857706
Really?... cite some stuff, please!

>>6858598
>>6857706
but only peer reviewed papers!

>>6851402
>implying division and multiplication shouldnt be on the same depth since they are opposites

>>6851402
>tfw soon at 'serious math' and in my first semester of college, not even a maths degree

The more I do maths the more I want to do, is this a sign I shouldnt become an engineer and rather focus on just physics/maths?

>>6852827
>Barnett identities
is that something that autismo kid invented? guys smart as fuk

File: mathematics space.jpg (864KB, 1514x2995px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 1514x2995px

>thinking only in two dimensions

>>6858838
Sticking out should be topos theory.

>>6851402
I hope this is the retard version of the graph?

>>6851402
The last section of this pic is obviously a joke, since they are either vacuous or humorously impossible. The middle two sections aren't ordered properly, cohomology is hardly "genius" level mathematics, and the poincare conjecture is a millenium prize problem.

>>6858838

I'm actually impressed with this

what about 4D though?

>>6858931
>what about 4D though?
Just add another axis