How do we eradicate the pop-sci scourge?

you can only get rid of -1/12 of them anyway

>>8666127
>How do we eradicate the pop-sci scourge?
You don't.
Feels good being God among brainlets.

>>8666127
Is numberphile brainlet tier?

Videos like this might turn some kid on to studying math. Eradicate yourself OP

>>8666168
>Is numberphile brainlet tier?
It's a nice YouTube channel.
If you get triggered you're not a cool guy.

File: 1482279948725.png (859KB, 1296x797px) Image search: [Google]

859KB, 1296x797px

by posting more dank memes

>>8666179
>you're not a cool guy

more like "you're not a reddit guy"

File: 1482870930786.png (603KB, 984x1124px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 984x1124px

I haven't met a math major who doesn't enjoy Numberphile.

Kill yourself, OP.

>>8666201
>YELLOWED.COM

keke

>>8666265
kiked

>>8666127

Is that because of something to do with statistics?

or is it because if 0! = 0 it would make a less easy taylor polynominal formula?

>>8667155
no, it's just the definition of the factorial as a function
[eqn]
0! = 1 \\
n! = n\cdot(n - 1)!
[/eqn]
that way the factorial terminates at 0

also, its [math]\Gamma(1)[/math]

>>8667155
One way to think of 0!=1 is that it in the vacuum of multiplication, there is an omnipresent 1 to multiply everything against. For example, 2*3 = 1*2*3 even if you don't write out the 1. If 0!=0 then you really wouldn't be able to multiply anything together.

In addition, lets define a "addition factorial" with the sign ?. In addition, there is an omnipresent 0 such that 2+3=0+2+3 so it would make sense that if n?= n + (n-1)? then 0?=0

>>8666220
there are "math" majors and then there are math majors
i can tell you right now that no actual math major cares about numberphile (or any other pop-sci math channel) because they are too busy learning actual math

n! is the number of bijections from a set with n elements to another set with n elements.

0!=1 because there's exactly 1 bijection from the empty set to itself.

>>8667278
How can there be a bijection between sets that have no elements?

>>8667316
The most formal definition of function that I know of is that it's a set of ordered pairs (x,y) such that x is from the domain, y is from the codomain and for each x in the domain the function has exactly one ordered pair (x,y).
If the domain is empty then the only function is the "empty function" (I.e. It has no ordered pairs)

>>8666127
OP confirmed for doesn't want fans or more funding for math education.

Thanks a bunch.

>>8666127
Hawking and others' pop sci books are part of what got me into science. It's good as long as it's done by people who actually know the subject.

>>8666127
>I hate everything that isn't rigorous because fuck getting people excited about science
I bet you just started university and like to be edgy on an imageboard.

>>8666127
You're American, aren't you?

>>8666201
ahahahaha

>>8667155
It's defined so that choosing n over n would equal 1.

The annoying thing about the whole -1/12 meme is that it confuses dummies by seeming to contradict basic calculus. They take away the belief that a divergent series equals -1/12.

>>8667155
An empty sum is equal to the neutral element of addition, 0. An empty product is equal to the neutral element of multiplication, 1.

>>8666127
Proper holistic education eradicates the retarded popsci scourge and the cancerous "muh stem" faggotry.

>>8666127
Numberphile is not pop-sci. There are very few, if any videos, that can truly be understood by your average idiot on Facebook. They also explore some real topics in math, like Ricci flow, Landau damping, recent Fields Medalist winners, RSA encryption etc.

>>8666127
Sorry, OP, but science needs PR. Otherwise scientists get burned at the stake.

>>8667242
>there are "math" majors and then there are math majors i can tell you right now that no actual math major
Stopped reading there. You give the impression of being on your first year of college and having a superiority complex.

>>8666127
The problem is that people believe in science. Science is only intended for predictions not as truths. Empiricism is much better than positivism. Thus, to remove the scourge, a pyrrhonic skepticism must be advocated. But this is unpopular, because people are too scared to accept that we experience isn't truth, and furthermore we have no way to verify the physical world.

>>8667242
t. expert in the product rule

>>8668274
unfortunately you're a bit off: i've got my bachelors
not sure about the superiority complex, but i do think i know what i'm talking about

>>8668721
The problem with truth is more of a problem with semantics. If by "true", I mean it in strict absolution, then nothing is true, truth has no meaning, truth is the same as untrue, and that is a very bad thing (post-modernism). So instead "true" and "fact" should be understood as true and factual for all intents and purposes. Because the truth is a very useful thing. There is an objective truth that's obscured by a subjective leans. Science is just tool we use to get ourselves as close as we can to the objective truth obscured by subjectivity.

>>8667155
you're overthinking it. a Factorial is howmany ways you can arrange n objects, and there is only 1 way to arrange no objects.

>>8666127
Off yourself, OP. Numberphile made me far more interested in studying mathematics than I previously had been. What harm is there in that?

>>8669949
If there are no objects then how can you arrange them?
checkmate

Pop-sci is good. Even if it's overgeneralized and exaggerated, it's getting more people interested in the subject.

If STEM gets too arcane and distant from the general public, everyone loses.

>>8670049
This

What got me into science and technology is Carl Sagan's Cosmos even though it only shows the big picture and not the hours of grueling rigor which I think is why we detest pop-sci. It still can make people curious/fascinated about science and perhaps make some people actually get into it academically

>>8669970
Yes, you're right, it doesn't make a lot of sense. As another anon pointed out in this thread, the set-theoretic definition checks out, but the intuition is still odd.
>If there are no objects then how can you arrange them
You're using the word "them" despite assuming there are no objects; your question and logic is malformed. We cannot consider arrangments (or lack thereof) of an empty set whatsoever, simply because the word "arrangement" refers to an operation on a nonempty set.
It is convenient in math to extend our definition of "arrangement" to empty sets and just say there is one unique arrangement. This is done similarly to how we make vacuous statements.

File: 3 analog calculators.jpg (11KB, 261x203px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 261x203px

>>8666177
+1
Pop-sci is ok even if it sometimes says things not quite true.
It generates interest in these fields.

People pissing vinegar like OP are the real scourge.

>pic quitely related to sci

>>8670065
>it only shows the big picture and not the hours of grueling rigor which I think is why we detest pop-sci
I think this is pretty much it. If science is going to be publicized, it should be an honest representation and not this half-correct overdramatized crap. It's depressing seeing so many people walking around with misguided interpretations of scientific knowledge and spouting stuff like "dude what if the universe is a simulation lmao" because they don't have anywhere close to the full picture.

>>8666268

anti-Semite.

reported

File: CVdBTpfWIAA5dgZ.png (182KB, 600x367px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 600x367px

>>8666201

Numberphile is good except for them not presenting the -1/12 zeta function thing well at all and causing themselves to be turned into a meme.

>>8666127
Every now and then I see one of his videos and it makes me think about things i wouldn't otherwise have.

I think it's a good channel, and people who hate on it are just insecure faggots.

>>8671283
Thank god someone else agrees

What about Brian Greene? "The Elegant Universe" and "Fabric of the Cosmos" and really any other NOVA production? Does this count as pop-sci?


desu I took mushrooms and clicked on a NOVA documentary once, had 0 interest in physics before it. After watching it, I have been absolutely obsessed with time, gravity, spacetime, and general relativity. It made me pick up books and start reading, something I haven't done since highschool. Going through "Achilles in the Quantum World" right now and it's fucking baller

Pop sci is there to get some people interested in science, which will then start doing serious science in the future. We should eradicate those idiots which think they know ALL about maths from watching the 1+2+3+4...=-1/12 bullshit

>>8671230
I was searching for this pasta, thanks

>>8668768

Yesir!

File: 1384901919228.jpg (1MB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5000x5000px

>>8666127
In all honesty, we need pop-sci in order to get normies hyped and give us more funding.