ITT: extremely painful equations

>>8973966
That's not an equation

>>8973970
nobody cares u frickin nerd

File: 1487688828112.png (34KB, 929x276px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 929x276px

>>8973966

>>8973966
why is this hard?

>>8973982
try and solve it its extremely painful

>>8973972

Is that electron-electron interaction? Can that even be solved analytically?

>>8973972
What subject?

>>8973966
>>8973986

OP is a brainlet

>>8973987
That's where computers come in

>>8973993
guarantee you cant simplify it big guy

>>8973971
>posts picture of a person with a penis
>"that's not a woman"
>"nobody cares u frickin bigot"
shitpost better

>>8973986
Just expand the factors of each term. Are you in middle school?

>>8973996
says a lot about you that this thread made you think about tranny dick doesnt it...

I think its 4u

File: file.png (512KB, 716x768px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 716x768px

>>8974000

>>8973986
I got 4u in about 30 seconds. I don't know why you think its difficult.

>>8973994

How do we know that the computer is correct if we cant solve it analytically?

>>8973999
i don't see how. apparently you're still struggling with high school math.

>>8973966
It's so easy I can see the solution without even thinking about it. There's mutual agreement around here OP is retarded, probably posting his grade 8 homework.

>>8973972

This is more like it.

>>8974007
As long as the symbolic computation methods are sound, you know it's right because it's math.

File: 1497352669148.png (1MB, 1140x1912px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1140x1912px

>>8973966
>>8973972
>>8973229

Compare to this pic.

>>8974006
its a meme u fuckin dip

>>8974026
solved it mate post something harder

>>8974022

>hurrr ITS MATHHH DUDE XDXDXD

That... does not really answer the question.

The computer is giving a solution. How do we know this solution is correct?

File: VEIN.gif (124KB, 95x79px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 95x79px

>>8974006
It was said to be painful

>>8974031
Man, just think about it. If you're solving it on a computer, you are using an algorithm that performs symbolic computation. These algorithms are based in mathematics like number theory and abstract algebra. Because you know these algorithms work, you know you have the solution.

>>8973982
>>8973993
>>8973998
>>8974006
>>8974008
[math]He's[/math] [math]wondering[/math] [math]why[/math] [math]someone[/math] [math]would[/math] [math]shoot[/math] [math]a[/math] [math]man,[/math] [math]before[/math] [math]throwing[/math] [math]him[/math] [math]out[/math] [math]of[/math] [math]a[/math] [math]plane.[/math]

>>8974035

You and I both know that this is a brainlet type of reasoning.

Stop wasting my time.

File: 1497034515169.png (44KB, 665x628px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 665x628px

>>8974028
>post something harder

Since you asked
>>8966462
>Inter-universal Teichmüller Theory

>>8974027
I know this is a meme too

>>8974039
>I don't understand Symbolic Computation
Whatever man. Take a computer algebra course (one that has abstract algebra as a prerequisite (i fucking hope there're no courses that don't)) and then maybe you'll see. It's the same reason you can trust calculators to add things properly.

@8974043

Stop replying to me and, most importantly, stop making a fool out of yourself.

This is embarrassing.

>>8974049
he's right you moron

>>8974049
Was being a retard part of your plan?

>>8973966
You out-memed /sci/
Well done

Would have been better if you made it bigger
Still laughed

>>8974040
Those are not equations.

>>8974017
look at this hothead over here

>>8973972
Lel reminds me of Watson's integrals.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WatsonsTripleIntegrals.html

Even Wolfram can't be assed to explain the final one
>to obtain an entirely closed form, it is necessary to do perform some analytic wizardry

>>8974007
Convergence proofs + numerical error analysis.

>>8973972
isn't this from Griffiths QM chapter 4? vaguely remember this last year

>>8973986
you're a big guy

>>8974006
Show your work

I got 5u.

>>8973999
Hahaha. This is the best comeback

>>8974006
What's the shortcut?

>>8974595
10 seconds to factor, 5 seconds to cancel like terms, 3 seconds to reduce the constants, 1 second to realize answer

that anon didn't take a short cut he took a long cut desu

>tfw to inteligent to get the joke

>>8974222
>1939
impressive

>>8974595
>factor quadratic
>cancel 2x-5 and 2x+5 terms
literally all there is to it

File: done.png (112KB, 2094x1028px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 2094x1028px

guys im having some trouble

>>8973966
4u!

>>8974641
Could you go over your steps? I solved it slightly differently.

>>8974700
4x^2u-25u=(2x+5)(2x-5)u, both x terms cancel leaving you with (u/2)/(1/8)

>/sci/ can't into difference of squares

>>8973966
>tfw it takes you 20 minutes to factor 4x-10

the easiest stuff is sometimes the hardest

>>8973995
Are you shitting me? This is basic algebra.
Every single person here should be able to immediately see how the two combine and at lest a couple steps of factorization.

You're a fucking retard.

>>8974653
Jesus Christ I'd give you and F just for how shitty you wrote that.

>>8973972
>>8973972

What in the fuck can this possibly be? Looks like some high dimensional sphere?

I like a bit of humor in a proof. If you can pull off humor in a proof then you're doing it right.

But that's just thumbing of nose. Come on now. Get rid of those phis and rs and let's get some n dimensional space.

>>8974040

Category theory is so sexy...

File: котэ-3716828.jpg (72KB, 811x813px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 811x813px

Deliver some interesting exercises form calculus. I know, you have some.

File: 1463338801201.png (254KB, 592x602px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 592x602px

>>8974765
>But that's just thumbing of nose. Come on now. Get rid of those phis and rs and let's get some n dimensional space.
You're completely clueless about what it's even about, keep your dumb ass opinions to yourself. In fact, just stop posting all together.
Honestly one of the cringier posts I've read on here, and that's saying a lot.

File: 1210.jpg (36KB, 396x385px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 396x385px

>>8973966
[math]x-\frac{1}{2}x^2 \leq \ln\left(1+x\right)\leq x, \quad \forall x \geq 0 [/math]

>>8974007
>How do we know that the computer is correct if we cant solve it analytically?
Why do you assume we can not? It would probably be extremely tedious, but still possible

>>8975044
Trivial.

>>8974765
>>8973987

it's a Helium atom I think

File: 1405228105950.png (284KB, 1547x1029px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1547x1029px

>>8973990
>>8973987
>>8974266
>>8974765

>>8973972
>>8975107
nice

>>8975107

source on that pdf?

>>8975130

Wouldn't know.

File: IMG_3425.jpg (28KB, 692x212px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 692x212px

>fine, I'll be that guy

>>8975467
Just cancel everything and you get that cursive e.

>>8974031
>>8974039

How do we know that if a human solved it it would be correct?

fucking idiot

File: 1494906928021.jpg (126KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 333x500px

>>8974856
>When you're trying to sound smart to your anonymous internet friends but end up exposing yourself as a brainlet.

Jesus I though sci was supposed to be the smart board, not filled with adolescent cringe Lords.

>>8975467
>not using the tensor representation of navier stokes

>>8975907
>not cross canceling

>>8973971
>hands over an apple
>hey could you untie this knot for me, it's really difficult
Until you reformat it into an equation you're literally just not making sense.

File: 1493906799174.jpg (2MB, 2000x2311px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2311px

>>8973966

>>8975044
It is obviously true for |x|<1 from seing the expansion of log(1+x) = x - x^2/2 + x^3/3 - ...
How do you prove it for x>=1 ?

>>8975044
>>8976327
nvm, log(1+x)-x is strictly decreasing for x>0, stricly increasing for -1<x<0 and has a minimum at 0 with value log(1+0)-0=0. so for all x>=0 log(1+x)-x<=0

Same shit for log(1+x)-x+1/2x^2