Math board!!!!!!

>>8206591
my thoughts are that you're a fag!!!!!! and a retard!!!!!!, go away, do your summer assignments

if you need help with your homework find a tutor or work harder

gtfo

File: image.jpg (75KB, 500x184px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x184px

>>8206602
I don't want any homework help, I'm just sick of shitpost of /sci. Think about it, wouldn't it better to have a Math board?

>>8206591

OP, this board is only good for Math.

Hardly anyone on this board seems to understand science or have any significant level of scientific understanding.

This board should just be called 'Formal Logic and Shitposting' (FLS).

>>8206612

It would be a thousand times better.

File: image.jpg (151KB, 844x679px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 844x679px

>>8206614
We can have math related shitpost and not science.

>>8206623

It's much less common than 'science' shit posting.

File: Der Gute.png (460KB, 1012x628px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 1012x628px

To me, interesting science is either
- science news of any subject (items you consume in 2 minutes and then, often, there isn't much to discuss)
- 3rd year or above physics problems (which mostly translate to a problem in math immediately)
And even the math miss-understandings (if they are about a more advanced subject) often come down to an miss-understanding on a lower formal level, and thus people do more formal stuff here. My guess.

PS I'd add philosophy of math and science to your list of stuff worth discussing.

>>8206591
Fuck off. /sci/ is already slow as fuck. Splitting off a section from it would lead to two dead boards. What we need are more active posters. You want math threads? Then create some. And you better make them interesting. Concerning the banter, learn to deal with it. This isn't stackexchange.

File: image.jpg (70KB, 363x330px)

70KB, 363x330px

>>8206652
That's because it's summer.
Stackexchange isn't a meme board.
We should vote on it.

>>8206624

science related shitsposting is easy because EVERY popsci video article is about science and NOT math, this is the reason why shitposting about math is a lot harder.

>>8206715
>shitposting about math is a lot harder.
0.999 = 1
1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12
Wildburger
Barnett triple integals
6/2(1+2) = 9 or = 1

>>8206718
Apart from Barnett triple integrals, these are all topics that people just don't want to invest time into and understand.
/sci/ could collectively attempt to write wiki faq pages and that can be extended by the community and at least try to agree to just relate back to it

>>8206715

Yes, I agree.

It's also why arxiv.org isn't plagued by meme papers, whereas journals dealing in psychology and medicine are.

>It's too complicated for most people to understand.

>>8206591
>Maths
Why not
Philosophy, Maths & Programming

we can call it /Phi/

File: image.jpg (583KB, 1438x2057px)

583KB, 1438x2057px

>>8206724
That's a good idea, Start a post?
>>8206740
>Philosophy >philosophy >philosophy

>>8206760
> >thought

>>8206591
Where were you when you realized that for a topological group [math]G[/math] with multiplication [math]\mu:G\times G\to G[/math], the induced map [math]\mu_*:\pi_1(G)\times \pi_1(G) \to \pi_1(G)[/math] is the same thing as composing paths? These are exciting times.

File: 1467389706788.png (151KB, 860x758px)

151KB, 860x758px

>>8206768
>babby's first Eckmann-Hilton argument

>>8206773
You can frogpost all you want; I learned something new and can use it to prove all sorts of nice things.

File: image.png (2MB, 1024x768px)

2MB, 1024x768px

>>8206768
G is a meme?
I honestly don't know what you're talking about.
But... I've read a bit and found out that "The face that G is a topological group is a red herring". And I've no idea what that means.

File: Bildschirmfoto 2016-07-16 um 16.19.03.png (204KB, 950x727px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 950x727px

>>8206816
Pic related should make everything clear

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/red+herring+principle

(I feel like I'm posting lots of links today, someone tell me if I should stop)

>>8206816
If you saw that here (http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1537428/why-is-the-fundamental-group-of-a-topological-group-independent-of-the-basepoint), then he's just saying that the fact being proved isn't really a result of being a topological group, but is the result of something that just happens to be true for topological groups.