ITT: /sci/ conducts a scientific study. We shall find the li

>>8805301
you seem like a quite intolerable person to be around

>>8805312
you seem quite jelly

File: babby.jpg (19KB, 385x383px)

19KB, 385x383px

>scientific study
>personality tests

>>8805320
>Hears someone say they are unscientific
>Isn't familiar with any of the reasons

This thread is fucking retarded. Please take a long walk off a short bridge, OP. Never post MBPT again. Shitpost with Big5. Have some pride in your work

>>8805332
This isn't MBTI

>>8805319
>jelly
>of an autistic brainlet
did the iq test, it was the stupidest test ive ever done got a 46/50 and im high af

just some background on MBTI, it was invented by a woman who was interested in psychology and had no formal scientific training, it works only because dividing the world into a series of binary categories is always possible

>>8805363
>I scored very high while high
>No evidence to substantiate claim

What does the MBTI have to do with anything? 16personalities isn't MBTI. If you'd actually read the site's description, you'd know that.

>>8805382
Are you retarded?

It says the MBTI right under the made-up label for it. ENTP, in your case. I got ENFP. Which is quite retarded, as I'm not extroverted, just confident and socially capable.

>>8805394
Show me a picture of what you're talking about, and don't use the R word, it's not 2003 anymore.

>>8805301
>rational

Fuck off.

>>8805431
Sigh, why are you so aggressive?

>>8805301
bump. give me your data.

>guaranteed _replies_(/sci/).jpg

>>8805301
>MBTI

Top kek, you may as well compare horoscopes.

File: 2017-04-05 15.55.02.png (193KB, 671x1197px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 671x1197px

>>8805404

Right off the website you retard.

File: 1491378600206.jpg (814KB, 3988x3988px) Image search: [Google]

814KB, 3988x3988px

>>8805404
I'm sorry, autistic.

Here you go.

File: IMG_7609.png (77KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 640x1136px

>>8805301
Pfft

It's pronuncd "debator".

>>8805301
my hypothesis is those that take these tests are faggots

how can we test it experimentally?

>>8806474
So describing the MBTI => the site is MBTI? Because that's definitely not true. And please don't use the R word.

>>8806489
so because it uses acronyms, it's MBTI? That's definitely not true. OCEAN/CANOE (Also known as the Big 5) isn't MBTI.

>>8807157
Dammit dude you're fucking stupid
MBTI has four categories
E vs I
S vs N
F vs T
P vs J

Are you really, seriously, honestly fucking retarded enough to think "ENTP" would seriously stand for some other arbitrary psychological topology based on a series of 4 binary categories and not the MBTI category "Extroverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving"?

You've pretty much proven my first post right, you seem intolerable to be around

>>8807177
I do think that, and if you actually read about their theory, so might you. This is completely different than the MBTI.

>>8807181
Jesus fucking christ, kill yourself

>>8807187
>reads the theory
>knows he's dead wrong
>k-k-kill y-y-yourself. Haha lmfao XD.

File: genius.png (32KB, 840x474px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 840x474px

so close!

>>8807270
god tier

>>8807421
i know right

also got INTJ and skeptic

>>8807270
>>8807421
>>8808262


samefag, nobody takes online iq tests seriously

>>8805301
>start test
>first question
>which vowel
>close tab

op, fuck off

File: smartard.png (147KB, 1113x654px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1113x654px

I'm really not sure what to make of this

Some amusing, but useless elementary equations I found messing around back in high school
[eqn] 3^3 + 4^3 + 5^3 = 6^3 [/eqn]
[eqn] \sum_{k=1}^n k^4 = \frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)(3n^2+3n-1)}{30} [/eqn]
[eqn] \sum_{A_{\ k}}^n \ \ \ \sum_{A_{\ k-1}}^{A_{\ k}} \ \ \ \sum_{A_{\ k-2}}^{A_{\ k-1}} \ \cdots \ \sum_{A_{\ 2}}^{A_{\ 3}} \ \ \ \sum_{A_{\ 1}}^{A_{\ 2}} A_{\ 1} = \frac{n(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)\cdots(n+k)}{1 \cdot 2 \cdot 3 \cdots (k+1)} [/eqn]
where in the last term all sums begin at 1 and start from the rightmost sum and go in order to the leftmost

>>8808749
You're intelligent but irrational

>"how rational are you?"
>first question
>you're watching a shitty movie, do you leave half way when it obviously won't get better

Obviously they're checking for the Sunk Cost Fallacy, but I would stick with it so I can talk about the movie with other people.

>>8808749
cute formulas anon, especially the last one. the answer is a binomial coefficient, which got me thinking that it probably has a combinatorial proof.


let Z denote the set of all partitions of n of size k+1. In other words, Z is the set of all k+1-tuples of non-negative integers which sum to n. by the stars-and-bars argument, Z has size[math]
{n+k\choose k}[/math]. we may consider Z to be a probability space by endowing it with the uniform measure.

define the random variables [math] X_j: Z\to N[/math] by
[math] X_j(p_1, \dots,p_{k+1})=p_j[/math]

we compute EX_1 in two different ways.

on the one hand, we may simply sum over all elements of Z directly, weighting each one with a factor of [math] 1/{n+k\choose k}[/math] to get

[math] EX_1=[/math](the sum on the left side of your formula)[math]/{n+k\choose k}[/math]

where we interpret A_j to be the sum of the first j elements of a given partition

on the other, clearly [math] \sum_{j=1}^{k+1} X_j=n[/math], which implies that [math] \sum_{j=1}^{k+1} EX_j=n[/math]

I claim that all X_j's have the same distribution. this is because we can switch any two entries in a given partition to get another partition. this gives a bijection between the set of all partitions with p_1=i and p_j=i, for any i and j.
in particular EX_j=EX_i for every j. so
[math] EX_1=n/k+1[/math]

equating the two expressions for the mean gives the formula

>>8808749
When I was in high school I found formulas for the sum of k^r, for r=4, 5, 6, and I think 7.

Basically you assume that the formula is a polynomial of degree one bigger than the power you're summing. Then you calculate several specific sums so that you can solve for the coefficients of the unknown polynomial. Then you finally prove that the formula works for all n by induction.

Not very elegant but I thought it was cool as fuck when I was 16.

>>8809428
that's pretty cool anon. there's a general formula for any r called faulhaber's formula.

>>8809426
I appreciate this proof. Rarely do people solve problems for fun because they're so lazy. I have a proof of my own, but I forgot it. It had something to do with the analogy between this sum and a multiple integral.

Are you a graduate? I'm dropped out now, but I won a state math contest in high school and wouldn't mind discussing math with you in the future.

>>8809495
>>8809426
You probably don't have time, but lord knows it'd be an upgrade for me from this place. Most of the time I end up scouring /sci/ for hours just looking for interesting problems and proofs

>>8809532
if you're looking for interesting problems and proofs, there are lots of other sites way better than this one, like math stackexchange, quora, or mathoverflow

>>8805301
98% mensa
skeptic
INTP

this is retarded

>>8809563
Thanks, you probably changed my life. As a teenager I catapulted to advanced math classes and and almost graduated, but my life spiraled out of control because I'm bipolar.

At least this way I can start doing math again