Stats is fucking boring

>>8719541
>define "1"
More like "Define 1, + and ="

you could make the argument that 1+1=13,170.6422, in physics if you use the Saros number to represent 1, there is nothing say what the 1 represents so there is no way of proving that i am wrong.

BASIC MATH BTFO

>>8719541
1 = 6, so 1 + 1 = 12

I'm one of the few CS students who actually likes statistics I guess.

>>8719567
really activated my almonds

I feel deeply offended as a physicist.

>>8719666
I really loved proof writing, as well as discrete and computational geometry (both taught by the same professor) but there's something the way he teaches stats, and the book that puts me off from wanting to be enthusiastic

>>8719693
Sucks to suck, you dirty pseudo-mathematician

>>8719666
I defend stats because its one of the primary tools of my major

I also kind of enjoy it

If you're taking intro stats, of course you'll find it boring. It's just setting up all ground rules for everything that comes later.

File: ref.jpg (7KB, 251x201px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 251x201px

>>8719580
Lebesque Approved

>>8719541
Stupid. Computer scientist should've said 10.

>>8719541
that image doesn't really make sense

the physicist one would be the engineers answer because they don't give a shit about exact anything and just need the approximations.

a physicists answer would be something like "assume 1 is an infinitely long, massless rope in a vacuum..."