/mg/ math general

>>9059413
wow he looks like the great khal. such a handsome man.

>>9059413
What's her ethnicity?

>>9059469
yeah youre right. thats perelman isnt it? very sexy man. definitely looks like the great khal. should have played him. more realistic.

>>9059481
She's (male).

Why has posting in /mg/ slowed down to a crawl in the last few days?

>>9059572
It's better that way.

File: hmm.gif (2MB, 540x486px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 540x486px

Why is Jacob Lurie so cute?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3f8KEcv4RE

>is supposed to be the smartest guy on earth
>somehow didn't even manage to become rich
yeah right.

>>9059900
Who are you quoting?

>>9059822
Why is she so cute?

>>9059973
Can you really blame him? It's not like animals such as himself are even conscious.

File: DO EET BITCHEZ.jpg (38KB, 568x510px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 568x510px

>Any interesting insights you'd like to share?
I believe everyone would like to read this preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06615
>The unreasonable power of the lifting property (orthogonality of morphisms in a category) in elementary mathematics
>For a property [math] C [/math] of arrows (morphisms) in a category, define:
> [math] C^l = \{ f : \forall g \in C\ \ f\ {_{^⋌}}\ g\} [/math]
> [math] C^r = \{ g: \forall f \in C\ \ f\ {_{^⋌}}\ g\} [/math]
>where [math] f\ {_{^⋌}}\ g [/math] reads "[math] f [/math] has the left lifting property w.r.t. [math] g [/math]"
>A number of elementary properties can be obtained by repeatedly passing to the left or right orthogonal [math] C^l,\ C^r,\ C^{lr} \dots [/math] (etc) a single example of the [starting property defined for a simple class of morphisms]

>>9059954
Because she is in love.

I just proved a nice formula

Theorem: [math] n^n \equiv n \mod (n-1)^2 [/math]

Proof:

[math] n^n - n = n(n^{n-1} - 1) = n(n-1) \left( \sum_{k=0} ^{n-2} n^k \right) [/math]

And [math] \sum_{k=0} ^{n-2} n^k \equiv \sum_{k=0} ^{n-2} 1 \equiv n-1 \equiv 0 \mod n-1 [/math]

Therefore [math] \sum_{k=0} ^{n-2} n^k = \alpha (n-1) [/math] so [math] n^n - n = \alpha n(n-1)^2[/math] so finally [math] n^n - n \equiv 0 \mod (n-1)^2 [/math]

@9059900
put in some effort next time you enormous faggot

>>9059413
I think i might have an unconventional idea to prove the riemann hypothesis but i suck at maths so i cant really work out the details. but i have an equation, which is (in my mind) only solvable for a real value of 1/2 in a really unconventional and reality bending way. The only problem is, i cant really derive it 100% clean and it breaks the math in my little brain.

I was trying to work it out the last 3 days, but im so unsuccessful and im doing so many errors on the way its not even funny.

I really want to solve the riemann hypothesis.
But alas, it BREAKS the maths.
Its like a quantum mechanical generator of 0s and 1s.
Anyone else got that vibe when thinking about the riemann zeta functions 0 crossings for re(s) > 0 ?
Am i just going insane ?
fuck my life

>>9060042
What's [math]\alpha[/math]?

>>9060072
Some integer. See that I proved that [math] \sum_{k=0} ^{n-2} n^k \equiv 0 \mod n-1[/math] so (n-1) divides that sum.

Therefore that sum is some multiple of (n-1). And I just call it [math] \alpha [/math].

>>9060042
>using mod

compsci fag pls leave

>>9060090
I'm not compsci. What notation do you use then?

x=0
x=x^2 divide by x
1=x is a neccessary condition

--> 0=x=1
since when is 0=1

File: MSHLAns.png (193KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 512x512px

>>9059572
>Why has posting in /mg/ slowed down to a crawl in the last few days?
fear of getting hit with pic related

>>9060055
your mind is too weak for math

File: 1489748896107.png (4KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 205x246px

>tfw differentiated a function all on my own for the first time
it certainly wasn't hard, but having to self-teach basic math that my basic schooling failed me on up to this point, it feels like something of a milestone.

>>9060107
Youre wrong.
My knowledge and training is too low for math.

>>9059822
I'd fuck Lurie hard in the ass if I could desu

>>9060098
[math]\frac{x}{x}=x[/math] is only true when [math]x \neq 0[/math]

File: patchouli_athsma.png (160KB, 395x587px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 395x587px

>>9059822
I'm worried about him. He sounds like he has asthma.

>>9060134
Meant [math]\frac{x}{x}=1[/math]

>>9060134
very wrong post

File: ?.png (67KB, 385x367px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 385x367px

>>9060134
>replying to low effort bait
y u do dis

Can somebody recommend me a good textbook for linear algebra?

File: 1499277209029.png (463KB, 507x482px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 507x482px

I'm gonna have to take a first year university calculus course this fall, and I'm a bit nervous. I did well in high school calculus, but that was 4 years ago, and I don't remember shit. What should I learn to be prepared. Pls help.

>>9060158
>What should I learn to be prepared.
open a calculus textbook

>>9060144
Axler is very good. Everybody agrees with that. Very good textbook

>>9060162
which one? I only have a month to prepare.

>>9060166
>which one?
whichever book your course uses

>>9060158
>What should I learn to be prepared
"How to prove it"
>which one?
Open Spivak's Calculus or Apostol's

>>9060164
>Everybody agrees with that.
That's quite the claim.

>>9060170
keep in mind, I'm taking Calc 1. That book seems kind of complex.

>>9060173
>That's quite the claim.
Sure, that one is obviously false. The rest of my post is solid though - as everyone would agree

>>9060178
>I'm taking Calc 1
it still could be with theory but I figure now that's not the case
Well then don't read anything just do khan academy then maybe - to refresh on what you learned

Just finished linear algebra, what should I study next ?

>>9060180
>as everyone would agree
I disagree.

>>9060304
if you know calc 1/2 you can learn calc 3
if you know group theory you can learn representation theory
multilinear algebra is good to know

>>9060304
Differential equations.

>>9060304
nonlinear algebra

>>9060304
open world algebra

>>9060304
first person algebra

>>9060304
Topological Algebra

>>9060304
Universal Algebra, Differential Algebra

>>9060304
bullet hell algebra

>>9060304
curved algebra

>>9060304
naval algebra

>>9060304
computational algebra

File: fuckin' shitposters I will murder u.gif (602KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 320x180px

FUCK YOU HE SHOULD STUDY DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS REEEEEEEEE!!!
Like it's been done historically. Learn calculus as you learn ODEs.

>>9060304
recreational algebra

>>9060304
anime algebra

>>9060304
cat algebra

we did it reddit XD

>>9060347
>>9060344
>>9060332
>>9060335
>>9060316
>>9060314
>>9060317
Thanks for the input, I'll start with Calc 3 and differential equations.

>>9060304
Highschool algebra

Can anyone here actually prove that [math]1 \neq 0[/math] ?

File: IMG_0819.jpg (31KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x600px

>>9060684
If you have 1 apple, you can eat that apple
If you have 0 apples, you cant eat that apple because there are none

>>9060684
you don't need to prove anything, they're not equal by definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

>>9060705
This is a good informal argument, but it's not a proof.
>>9060706
Bad post. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

>>9060684
Easily provable in Peano arithmetic.

Suppose that [math] 1=0 [/math]. Then [math] S(0) = 0 [/math].

This contradicts the axiom that says [math] \forall n \in \mathbb{N}, S(n) \neq 0 [/math]

File: 1448061734635.png (408KB, 558x689px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 558x689px

>>9060734
Good. And what about some other systems where it isn't an axiom?

>>9060741
>it isn't an axiom?

But it isn't an axiom lol. I proved that it contradicts an axiom. Back to logic 101, compsci kiddy.

>>9060751
>But it isn't an axiom
I clearly meant the axiom which it contradicts. Do you have reading comprehension problems? There's a thread for people like you.
>lol
Really now?
>compsci kiddy
An interesting assumption. So what are you trying to achieve again?

>>9060751
>I proved
you didn't.

>>9060684
>>9060728
>>9060741
>>9060757
>>9060792

Posts like this are the second biggest cancer haunting /sci/, right after /pol/tards.

>>9060741
Using von Neumann's construction of the natural numbers:
[math]0=\varnothing \\
1 =\{\varnothing\}\cup\varnothing=\{\varnothing\}\neq0[/math]
It follows immediately from any valid definition of the natural numbers.

File: 1499939355878.png (411KB, 495x512px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 495x512px

>>9060684
OH FUCK REALITY IS DISINTEGRATING BEFORE MY VERY EYES JUST BECAUSE I COULD NOT PROVE [math]0 \neq \operatorname{Succ}(0)[/math]

>>9060803
Good job, anon.
>>9060885
>I COULD NOT PROVE [math]0 \neq \operatorname{Succ}(0)[/math]
I feel sorry for you.

>>9060304
nonassociative algebra

File: 1498581260335.jpg (298KB, 912x1111px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 912x1111px

>>9060684
Define 1 such that [math]1*x = x \ \forall \ x[/math]
Now define 0 such that [math]0*x = 0 \ \forall \ x[/math]

If [math]1 = 0[/math] then necessarily [math]x = 0 \ \forall \ x[/math]
So the existence of a single nonzero number x would contradict the assertion that 1=0.

But alas, I don't know how to prove the existence of a number whose only property is that it's not zero, especially when operating under the assumption that 1=0, which implies that every number is zero. How can I prove that at least one number is not zero when I've made an assumption that implies ALL numbers are zero?

I'm thinking this is one of those "unprovable but true statements" Godel was going on about...

File: 1474421342350.jpg (24KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 512x512px

>>9061072
I don't know if this is a shitpost or just retardation.

>>9061087
It'd have to be a very severe form of retardation considering the thicc thinking meme.

I'll be done all the "general" requirements for my mathematics degree next semester (top 50 university, so nothing that good). What emphasis area should I do?

1. Abstract
2. Applied/Computational
3. Actuarial/Financial
3. Computer Science
4. Operations Research/Management
5. Statistics

>>9061107
Why do you think this is an appropriate question for this thread?

File: when will moon.png (195KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 512x512px

>>9061107
>Reminder: /sci/ is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics, not for helping you with your homework or helping you figure out your career path.

>If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to /adv/ - Advice.

>>9061114
fine

>>9060803
What a vacuous construction.

>>9060042
n = 2
4 ≡ 2 mod 1
4 ≡ 0
???
Is there something I'm missing here?

>>9061372
>Is there something I'm missing here?
4 is congruent to 2 mod 1, what's the issue?

>>9061375
>4 is equivalent* to 2 mod 1

>>9061379
>being this retarded

File: 1500793214202.png (108KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x381px

>>9061406
>he doesn't think 1 divides 2
>being this retarded

>>9061375
>>9061379
>>9061406
>>9061421
All integers are congruent to 0 modulo 1 you dumb-asses. So every integer is congruent to every other integer modulo 1.
[math] 4 \equiv 2 [/math] because [math] 4 \equiv 0 \equiv 2 [/math].

>>9061517
>All integers are congruent to 0 modulo 1 you dumb-asses.
Did I say otherwise? Why did you quote my posts?

File: Untitled.png (2MB, 1202x910px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1202x910px

Daily reminder to work with physicists.

File: NO.jpg (87KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1280x720px

>>9061548
>work with physicists
>work with the brainlets that pollute mathematics

>>9061548
>image: Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians
>This series of courses was intended to teach mathematicians [...] physics, [...] and consequently there is considerable diversity in mathematical rigor among the courses recorded in these volumes.
>considerable diversity in mathematical rigor among the courses
I'm not going to drop this because I'm not even going to bother to pick it up. Eat shit.

>>>/pg/ - Physics General

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quantum+Fields+and+Strings
>While advertized as “A course for mathematicians”, experience shows that it is not really suited for pure mathematicians without previous exposition to and tolerance for physics
A bad sign already: the bullshit, hand-wavy distinction between "pure" and "applied" mathematics is taken seriously by evangelisers of the text. (No, you assholes: mathematics is mathematics is mathematics! If your shit lacks rigour you're not doing "applied" mathematics, you're doing only pretending to be doing mathematics.)
>But it is much better than the average physics text.
>If you only ever touch a single book on string theory, touch this one.
Interesting. So it's garbage pseudo-mathematics, but not as putrid as all the other unrigorous junk out there, which makes it worthy of being read.

Thanks but no thanks. This looks like another attempt by physishits of trying to get mathematicians to fix the mess they created.

>>9060090
I took a course in abstract algebra for mathematicans (I'm CS and we use mod notation in CS courses too) where we used mod notation. What other notations are there?

File: 1500602918336.jpg (52KB, 716x724px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 716x724px

>>9061610
>physicists' work pollutes mathematics
at least they work

What is /mg/'s opinion on Advanced Calculus by Loomis and Sternberg?

Hey, im the guy from yesterday who was talking about the riemann hypothesis.

I think i have proven it now.

What should i do now to get 1 Million ?

>>9061727
try to publish it so everyone can have a good laugh

>>9061729
Yeah, huge chance its BS.

Its only 3 Steps long, too.

Can i go to my local mathematician and ask if its Bullshit or will they try to steal it if its not ?

File: 1496801952929.png (438KB, 1350x620px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1350x620px

I'm pretty sure I just proved that infinitesimals are fucking useless homosexual propaganda invented by engineers

We'll call an infinitesimal any number x such that y + x^k = y for all k>0. It's trivial to say that a sum of infinitesimals is zero.

So consider that you have the sum [math]\sum_{k=0}^\infty x^k =1[/math]

[math]1+x+x^2+x^3+x^4+x^5... = 1[/math]

[math]x+x^2+x^3+x^4+x^5... = 0[/math]

[math]x(1+x+x^2+x^3+x^4...) = 0[/math]

[math]1+x+x^2+x^3+x^4... = 0[/math]
It should be obvious that the left hand side is equal to 1; it's the same expression we started with
Therefore we reach the contradiction 1=0
This is what happens if you put infinitesimals in your math. Degeneracy.

>>9061765
You divided by zero in the last line. You said it yourself that all [math] x^{k} > 0 [/math] is 0. You literally just redefined 0 and you call infinitesimals degenerate.

>>9061806
>not sure if I'm degenerate or engineers are degenerate
why do you do this to my psyche

>>9061733
Just post it here dude...

If you are really paranoid about your million dollars, attach your name (or any other identifier) and you will get the prize money.

>>9061765
>I'm pretty sure I just proved that infinitesimals are fucking useless homosexual propaganda invented by engineers
no, you proved to us that you are a brainlet.

as the other anon stated you have done the classic mistake of dividing by zero.

>>9061810
Re-read your last line and learn a better definition of infinitesimals before you start 'proving' anything.

>>9061817
its a good thing that nobody knows what university i teach at

>>9061816
I think thats the worst advice anyone has ever given. If the guy is right with his stuff, anybody can copy it and act as if hes come up with it

>>9061765
How does 1 + x^2... equal zero when you stated that it is equal to zero when multiplied by x?

File: urgh.jpg (69KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1024x576px

>>9061680
Are you...?
Are you implying that we don't?

>>9061835
Firstly he is not right.

Secondly if he were right (this possibility is very close to 0) , this thread would be archived and there would be prove that he indeed was the first or he could choose another site to upload his pdf. Didn't perelman do it the same way?

>>9061765
Is there any reason you define infinitesimal that way?

> math major
> no experience
> average gpa

so what the hell do you guys put on your resume? do you talk about problems you've solved, courses you've done well in, or what?

>>9061853
Are you sure i could post it ?

im excited if its complete BS or not, cause im not a mathematician. But im also really afraid it could be stolen, i mean who care about 4chan ?

I would need to publish it first and in a formally correct way, and if someone else publishes it before me im screwed.

I never published anything so theres another problem.

>>9061859
it's the definition that made intuitive sense
"Stuff + basically nothing = same amount of stuff" is y+x=y
almost none of basically nothing is even less than basically nothing, so x^k is also infinitesimal
but I guess I've illustrated that you can't divide by infinitesimals for the same reason you can't divide by zero, so in all likelihood [math]x^0 \neq 1[/math]

>>9061885
Hash your name with SHA256, put it in the document. If it turns out to be correct, give your name and it will be readily verified that it was you. Hash further information about yourself or salt your name with a phrase if you want to be extra safe.

>>9061887
yeah, I was thinking about the traditional definition of infinitesimal, more general, something like "some function that tends to 0", of course there are issues with this definition, too.

>>9061885
If you are honestly completely certain that your solution is correct then the probability that someone will steal it is of course there.

But there are measures you can take, eg. linking a pdf (you should easily be able to demonstrate that it was posted before anyone else) and >>9061892.

But to be honest the probability that you are right is almost zero, it is one of the major open problems in mathematics and a lot of people have though about it.

The guy is either trolling or a fucking schizophrenic. Stop wasting your time with his bullshit claims.

>>9061903
This line break policing is the most annoying form of internet autism since the grammar nazis

>>9061907
>not wanting to have a good laugh reading his "proof"

>>9061667
>>9060092
[eqn]n^n\in [n]_{\mathbb{Z}/(n-1)^2\mathbb{Z}}[/eqn]

>>9061900
Im not completely certain. But the "proof" seems to work (for me). I know that the probablility is almost zero, i just wanted to have some fun with it, and it makes sense to me.

>>9061907
Youre right, i could be shizophrenic because of my parentage. But the only things i experienced yet is paranoja from weed, nothing else. You gave me chills. Cause i was afraid of being shizophrenic. But i dont think i am.

It was like i was prokrastinating from university stuff and the riemann zeta function was a means to do that.

Anyway, i will not publish the attempt now, or post or whatever. Maybe at some other point in time.

I will go throught every detail and maybe ask some friends if its bullshit, because i will be more comfortable with that than here.....

...>>9061911

I had to make use of mathematics that im really unfarmiliar with......

>>9061930
see you guys, ill come back after meal and i guess ill do >>9061892 then, just for fun

>>9061930
>and maybe ask some friends if its bullshit
Are you sure you want to subject yourself to the shame? I know I wouldn't. We on the other hand are random anons.

>9061937

other question... doesnt the clay institute state that it needs to be published in a paper ?

I mean only theoretically: what happens someone posts the proof, but someone else publishes a paper ?

Does the guy with the idea get the credit, or does the guy with the paper get it ?

File: Perelman.jpg (157KB, 640x445px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 640x445px

>>9061941
If you want the money then you'll never make it in the first place.

File: 1472632919_465818_1472633897_noticia_normal.jpg (48KB, 980x588px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 980x588px

>>9061941
The guy with the proof everyone can understand get it.

>>9061892
>salt your name with a phrase
What do you mean by that

>>9061952
You could add something to your name, like "Name Surname1 Surname2, formerly known as anon" so that there's no fucking way on Earth someone can brute force your name, though I was thinking about this idea in the context of trying to not get discovered in the first place while letting an avenue to be identifiable if necessary (so if you're a terrorist and want the option to claim ownership of a manifesto, for example).

On some reasons for doubting the Riemann hypothesis: https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0311162

Several arguments against the truth of the Riemann hypothesis are extensively discussed.
These include the Lehmer phenomenon, the Davenport–Heilbronn zeta-function, large and mean values of |ζ(1/2 + it)| on the critical line, and zeros of a class of convolution functions closely related to ζ(1/2 + it). The first two topics are classical, and the remaining ones are connected with the author’s recent research. By means of convolution functions a conditional disproof of the Riemann hypothesis is given.

File: ABC_02.jpg (534KB, 1000x650px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 1000x650px

What are some bad-ass looking, testosterone poisoned mathematicians? For example like Go Yamashita the samurai.

>>9061682
the title doesn't lie - it's pretty darn advanced

Say I have a finite set {1, 2, 3, ..., 4000}

Why does it appear that I can compute any element of the set at random without enumerating the set? I know that 2314 is an element of the set, I can tell without checking against the enumerated set that it is indeed contained within the set. Why?

>>9062249
>>>/sci/sqt/

>>9062249
Because the "..." has a meaning.

You can write your set as [math]\{x \in \mathbb N_+| \ x \leq 4000 \}[/math].

The "..." is essentially a lazy way to specify a property, which you can check without checking each element in the set.

The same goes for something like 0.5 being included in (0,1).

File: __yakumo_ran_and_yakumo_yukari_touhou_drawn_by_jimuguri_dzimuguri__dd935f354ec44fe56116ac8cb3f7661a.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>9061548
>work with
Driving them like the slaves they are is more my style.

>>9062267
Go back to your asylum physishit.
>>>/sci/physics

>>9062266

So what's the difference between that set and set that is still finite, countable and computable, but is formed from a far more arbitrary property?

For instance, the subset of that set, whereby each element of the subset has a 3 letter representation in roman numerals?

Why does it seem like I suddenly need to enumerate the set in order to determine whether it contains 2314, or 112, or 509? Why don't I just 'know', like I did for the first set?

Is it just due to the complexity of the computation? Or is there some additional property?

>>9062292
>Why does it seem like I suddenly need to enumerate the set in order to determine whether it contains 2314, or 112, or 509?
I dont know what you mean by that.

If you have a set specified by a property and you want to know if a given element is a member you just have to check if the element has that property.

In your example with the numerals, why would you enumerate anything?
MMCCCXIV is 2314, so it is not a member, 509 is DIX and less then 4000 so it is a member. At which point did you have to enumerate anything at all?

Of course one can construct sets where checking whether something is a member might be arbitrarily hard to compute (or even unknown).

In general to know if a set has a certain element you need to check the property by which it is specified (eg. {1,2} can be specified as {x \in N, x=1,x=2}), to know how "hard" it is to do that you head you probably have to ask a neuroscientist (who probably has no clue either).

>>9062302
how can i get rid of spacing, but at the same time dont write my entire fucking text in a straight line ?

>>9062332
At least you didn't post an ugly whore...

>>9062328
You stop trying to format the post in the comment box like a moron, that's how. It's not only that you're showing you're a total newfag, but this style of formatting is also a sore to read through and wastes too much space.
How hard can it be to hit return just once?

What if i am a moron ? Whats return ?

There's a world of difference between neat compact posts like these (none of which are mine, just so you know): >>9061963 >>9061976 >>9061650 >>9060039 >>9061887
and overstretched reddit spacing crap like so many of the other phoneposts in this summerfag infested dump.
Let the site do its implicit formatting you fuckers, yours looks awful.

File: return.jpg (452KB, 3092x2048px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 3092x2048px

>>9062352
>What if I am a moron ?
In that case you should return reddit where you belong.

>>9062369
sorry, i have only the enter button, not return.
can you tell me how i can return a website that doesnt belong to me ?

>>9062320

So given that, why can I arbitrarily generate members of the first set but not the second?

Why do I first have to generate a number and then check if its in the set either via computation or pick an element from the enumeration of the set?

What's the property that the first set has, but the second doesn't, or vice versa. What's that called? Or is there no difference, its just that the first set can easily be enumerated and the second cannot?

>>9061903
>>9061972
>>9062256
>>9062277
>>9062302
>>9062332
>>9062339
>>9062361
>>9062369

/sci/ equivalent of Barneyfag?

>>9062379
Have your (you) and fuck off already.

>>9062379
>why can I arbitrarily generate members of the first set but not the second?
What do you mean?

(free space so that I can get a pointer to /r/eddit)

How do you generate a member of the first set? Do you mean random?


I think you are thinking about this the wrong way, my entire point was that all sets are given by a property and to check whether a element is a member you have to check this property. This also has nothing to do with enumeration.


I think what is confusing you is the fact that you already know a lot of numbers < 4001, finding one is very easy for you. Think about what a computer would have to do, in all cases the general procedure would look the same, just the computation necessary would be different.


The property that the first set has is just that you are very familiar with it.

>>9062404
Why are you replying to yourself? Did you forget to take your meds?

File: 2017-07-25-201753_1920x1080_scrot.png (231KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1920x1080px

>>9062407
?

>>9062409
Thank you for being cancer then.
The /sqt/ general exists for a reason.
>>9062411

>>9062417
But I didn't ask a question, I just answered...

File: ruminate on this.png (483KB, 1132x748px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 1132x748px

>>9062418
Ah, so you're only pretending to be retarded. I understand: now fuck off.

File: 1484897556993.jpg (68KB, 690x889px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 690x889px

>>9062430
>what did he mean by this

>>9062404

My problem is that I don't really know what I mean. I'm having trouble describing it.

Say I wanted to generate a random element of that roman numeral set. Personally, my first solution to doing this would be to enumerate the set, then index it, then generate a pseudo-random number and select the element at the corresponding index. But I'm dumb, so I'm aware this probably isn't the best solution, as it involves storing a potentially large set (not for this problem maybe, but this is just an example).

Is there a way to perform the same function, but to do so without enumerating and storing the set first? Or is that impossible? If so, why can I generate pseudorandom numbers within a certain interval without enumerating the entire interval?

>>9062390
>>9062407
>>9062417
>>9062430

/sci/ equivalent of Barneyfag.

>>9060090

I took an algebraic number theory course this quarter with Brian Conrad and he uses mod notation

get off your fucking high horse lmao

>>9062446
>I am a compsci brainlet
This explains a great many things.

File: yukari_suicide_hotline.png (128KB, 496x450px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 496x450px

>was going to post an informative summary of why the anon shitting on nCatLab's QFT text suggestion is wrong
>mfw 4chan thinks it's spam because I actually link my sources

>>9062455
Link? Nobody posted "was going to post an informative summary of why the anon shitting on nCatLab's QFT text suggestion is wrong" "mfw 4chan thinks it's spam because I actually link my sources".

>>9062446
>Is there a way to perform the same function, but to do so without enumerating and storing the set first?
Yes.

Lets just assume you could generate random numbers in the range of 1 to 10000 on a computer (where each number has a non zero chance to occur).

With that you could use the function to generate a random number and see whether it is <= 4000 or not, thereby generating members of your set.

You could also do the exact same for the roman numerals, generate a random number, check if it is <= 4000, convert it to a roman numeral and check its length (the speed of that is hardware dependent).

>why can I generate pseudorandom numbers within a certain interval without enumerating the entire interval?
The roman numerals with <4 digits are not an interval (in the natural numbers). But you can certainly generate numbers in a pseudo random subset of the natural numbers that way.

The interesting question here is really more about neuroscience then mathematics though.

File: pumped mao.jpg (40KB, 500x618px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x618px

>>9062455
Nice, the spam filter is finally working properly. Thank you for being based and sparing us the physishit vomit for once, hiromoot.

>>9062474
If only it worked on these cancerous redditposters and their lame bait too.

>>9062476
which reddit posters

and which bait

?

>>9062476
I think we need a more direct approach for that one.

>>9062474
She is very cute. What kind of mathematics does she like?

>>9062487
chads dick (it is pretty smooth).

like all attractive girls do.

Filthy undergrad here. A month ago I showed a conjecture of mine to a professor (the conjecture is in analysis) and today I finished a complete proof and I emailed him a 7 page long proof filled with limits, integrals and infinite series.

What are the odds he will read it?

File: 1464512940852.png (125KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 256x256px

>>9062494
>"infinite" series
No such thing.

>>9060304
Lie Algebras

>>9062500
Honest Algebras

>>9062498
If infinite series don't exist then neither do integrals so I don't know why you'd restrict yourself to just saying infinite series don't exist.

And while we are at it, infinite series are defined by their partial sums sequence converging, so you might as well just also say that limits don't exist because limits existing implies infinite series existing.

>>9062506
>I don't know why you'd restrict yourself to just saying infinite series don't exist.
Your first sentence is precisely why.

>>9062506
Do not reply to ultrafinitists

(Unless you want an honest debate)

>>9062509
>ultrafinitists
What is an "ultrafinitist" and when did I claim to be one?

>>9062525
ultra finitists:
There are no infinite sets

Finitists:
There are a finite amount of infinite sets

Semi-finitists:
There are infinitely many infinite sets but they fall under one category.

Quasi-finitists:
There are finitely many types of infinite sets

infinitists:
There are infinitely many types of infinite sets

WHERE DOES /MG/ FALL ON?

File: 1484509542033.jpg (187KB, 734x778px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 734x778px

>>9062525
>What is an "ultrafinitist"
A person who does not believe in mathematics which includes any notion of infinity.

>when did I claim to be one?
I though >>9062498 was a good indication, because I don't see any other reason why you would reject infinite series. Am I wrong?

>>9062536
>WHERE DOES /MG/ FALL ON?
There are no sets.

>>9062494
If by read it you mean skim through it, pretty high. I know I would. Don't expect him to really go into it unless he's interested. At least not soon. He'll probably treat it as correcting a homework assignment, the difference being that he can do it on his own time, without a schedule.

File: hmpf.jpg (54KB, 500x411px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x411px

>thread goes from pointless answers to retarded questions to finitist meme spamming again
Why are you faggots so incontinent?

File: 1427818258159.png (316KB, 472x720px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 472x720px

>>9062545
>includes any notion of infinity
Be more precise please.
>I don't see any other reason why you would reject infinite series
The main reason would just be their utter retardation.

>>9062558
>Why are you faggots so incontinent?
It might have something to do with you using "faggots" and not "faggot".

File: 1492806195869.jpg (22KB, 405x405px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 405x405px

>>9062558
This thread was a mistake
- OP

>>9062547
When I first showed it to him he said it "seems interesting". How would you interpret that?

File: 1469414201212.jpg (443KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1920x1080px

>>9062560
>Be more precise please.
As >>9062536 defined it.
It would have probably been better to say that an ultrafinitist rejects infinite sets.
(Which to him would make the notion of a series with infinitely elements absurd)

File: fuck finitists.png (721KB, 1024x586px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 1024x586px

>>9062536
I don't know about the other /math/ematicians but I am convinced that Grothendieck universes exist, so basically -- fuck finitists.

>>9062571
I would personally interpret it as him stating that the conjecture seems interesting to him. But I'm pretty autistic so I might be wrong.

>>9062571
I don't know your professor, but I wouldn't put too much weight on it. Everything "seems interesting" for some degree of "interesting".

File: 1442513015516.jpg (107KB, 800x1131px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 800x1131px

>>9062576
In what sense are the words "type" and "category" used there? It's not precise at all.

>>9062577
>I am convinced that Grothendieck universes exist
What makes you so convinced?

File: 1484459109317.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>9062588
I actually do not know that and that is why I only talked about ultra finitism, the definition there is not ambiguous.

Just as a guess I would say that category and type both mean cardinality. (although that would be practically murder on the language of math)

>>9062591
Mathematics in general seems to imply a metamathematical condition that can be roughly formulated as "if something can be more complex it will be" or "there are monsters everywhere".

>>9060304
diatonic algebra

File: 1459005360759.png (346KB, 964x1431px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 964x1431px

>>9059413
>Or do you just want to tell the world how homotopy and category theory are the work of Satan?
I would just like to tell the world that they are a gift from God.

File: 1484632398988.jpg (71KB, 1189x780px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1189x780px

>>9063359
Not too long ago these threads were dedicated to proving otherwise. Nowadays it seems that the focus has been taken away from substance to presentation.

File: 20140619_142542.jpg (149KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 640x480px

>>9059413

>>9062494
What was it about, and how did you come up with the conjecture?

>>9063984
Why are you writing like that? Do you want people to get a neck strain?
>>9063383
I imagine that among all STEM folks mathematicians have the easiest time believing in some notion of godhood given how 80% of us are unprincipled platonists, and 15% principled platonists (the figures are pulled out of my ass/based on anecdotes). I think this is the main reason why mathematical platonism tends to make philosophers queasy. There's a short leap from believing mathematical constructions are in some sense real to believing that there exists some all-encompassing 'Logos' behind it all.

>>9062494
By the way anon: why don't you post it here too? We can go over it and see if it's correct.

File: 1491742491522.jpg (54KB, 697x960px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 697x960px

>>9064122
It was actually a reference to fighting over reddit spacing. Math itself is fun and games. And a way to think about something other than dying for a while.

>>9063084
Why *does* that work? I remember that anon posted something like that before here too. Anon, how did you come up with the approximation?

My uni's applied computational math program has some courses called "numerical analysis" as part of the core curriculum. Could someone enlighten me how these differ from the real and complex analysis courses that are also required?

File: collatz.png (6KB, 647x588px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 647x588px

>>9064171
Collatz sequence length is very erratic (pic related). That guy is calculating something else or is calculating the length of the sequences wrong.

>>9061765
Nigga, the infinitesimals are just the algebra [math]\frac{\mathbb{C}[e]}{e^2}[/math], which is isomorphic to the local ring (modulo the squared maximal ideal) of a non-singular point of some algebraic curve.

It's a natural way to express a function value and a tangent vector in the same expression.

>>9064178
It is exactly what it says on the tin, [math] numerical [/math] analysis. Approximations. You don't calculate an integral by finding a closed form of it, you approximate it numerically. You don't calculate a derivative by finding a closed form of it, you approximate it numerically.
You will learn why various methods of approximation work and when they fail.

File: ?.jpg (148KB, 953x953px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 953x953px

>>9064183
>the infinitesimals are just the algebra [math] \cfrac{ \mathbb{C} [e]}{e^2} [/math]
What.

>>9064193
he/she thinks he knows what he/she's talking about, but he/she's just confused

>>9064122
I'm still not sure why people think sets and functions themselves have to be 'real' (like Wildburger posits for example).
As far as I'm concerned it's the axioms we take and the definitions we make that give rise to mathematical objects.
There is clearly some underlying 'real' that determines if a set of axioms and definition are consistent and what can be concluded from that, but that is miles away from saying that you have to 'be able to draw every set on a whiteboard'.

>>9064201
>he/she
Calm down man, I am sure you can just say "he".

>>9064204
>Calm down man
I'm not a man

>>9064207
And I don't believe you. /sci/ is too niche to be interesting to a woman. You are just larping aren't you? If you aren't, show proof.

>>9064212
>/sci/ is too niche to be interesting to a woman
/sci/ is just science and math... since when are those niche?

>You are just larping aren't you?
No.

>If you aren't, show proof.
Again, no. It's silly to expect people to prove whatever gender they are, this isn't /soc/.

>>9064217
Identifying as a woman doesn't count, so shut up and show us the boipucci.

File: me.jpg (250KB, 530x927px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 530x927px

>>9064212
I am not her (male) but it is common knowledge that everyone here is a girl (male).

>>9064217
fuck off. if you're going to come here all "I'm A GIRRRRLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!" then what the fuck are you good for if you can't show your used up shameless body?

go be a slut somewhere else

>derails entire thread by attention whoring
sounds like a woman to me

>>9064217
>/sci/ is just science and math... since when are those niche?

Okay, this is a really dumb statement. So dumb I think only the inferior mind of roasties could conjure this shit up.

/sci/ is not just science and math. /sci/ is the place where people who are into science math, who are also into anime and japanese culture in general and also have general political awareness about the current global climate, come have discussions.

/sci/ is very fucking niche, man.

> It's silly to expect people to prove whatever gender they are

So you are just larping huh?

File: file.png (3MB, 2039x1447px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2039x1447px

Oh no the gay boy ERP is starting. How do I change the channel?

File: gtfo.jpg (30KB, 500x301px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x301px

>>9064217
>>9064228
>reddit

>spacing

>>9064229
You change the channel by changing your gender.

File: 1500241761941.png (183KB, 400x500px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 400x500px

>>9064229
Oh look it's the third world dog eater again.
Fuck off gook.

File: 1500675680821.jpg (94KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1280x720px

To fuck with it is scientifically proven that crossdressing cute boys have superior IQ and programming skills. Feels good having the brains and body.

>>9064241
Isn't that the slut from Scum's wish?

File: 1500757489237.jpg (99KB, 853x960px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 853x960px

>>9064244
All girls in that show are sluts.

>>9064241
>>9064244
Oh fuck she is. Damn that show was so disappointing.

You know, when that season started I watched the first episode right after it aired and I was impressed. Then I told all my friends about how the show was so mature and I started highlighting it's "artistic merits" because anime does not usually portray sexual relationships in such a grim and realistic tone. I said that this show was brave for surpassing the limitations of the culture of anime and finally coming up with a real story about sex and sexual people that would explore the darker side of our sexual desires.

...

Then I watched the second episode with all that onii-chan uguu desu ne sugoi xD typical harem garbage and dropped it immediately.

Why do anime studios play with my heart like that? I am REALLY soft for things that look artistic and deep so I fall easily into these traps. Fuck that studio for making that shit anime and fuck them for making the first episode seem so mature.

File: scholzed.gif (181KB, 400x226px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 400x226px

Shut up and post cute boys doing cute math.
Like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cKbbYpvFQk

Topological cyclic homology is an approximation to algebraic K-theory that has been very useful for computations in algebraic K-theory. Recently, it has also inspired some work in integral p-adic Hodge theory. Its definition however requires delicate tools from genuine stable homotopy theory, and explicit point-set models. In joint work with Thomas Nikolaus, we revisit this theory, by giving a simplified definition of the ∞-category of cyclotomic spectra, and corresponding simplified formulas for topological cyclic homology.

>>9064188
Alright thanks for the explanation. What would you suggest adding to an applied major? Honestly, most of the math courses I'd be taking seem to fall under pure anyway, but it doesn't include any shit like topology or combinatorics which seem like they could be useful. I'm also meant to choose between an abstract algebra or theoretical statistics course but I figure I should take both.

File: urgh.jpg (83KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 320x320px

>>9064255
>What would you suggest adding to an applied major?
Prompt suicide. (There is no such thing as applied maths.)

>>9064255
Or apparently I'm a retard, says the analysis courses cover "basic topology"

>>9064261
Thanks for the useful contribution edgelord

>>9064262
That just means that you will learn what open, closed, connected, disconnected, bounded and unbounded sets are. Probably just in the setting of the real numbers.

>>9064264
He has a point. The distinction between applied and pure mathematics is stupid desu.

>>9064264
Considering how I am the guy who replied to his initial query in the first place, I think that giving him a smack on the head is part of my recompense.
Stop pushing the applied math meme. There is no such thing.

>>9064267
Yeah looking at the applied math course listing it's by far the smallest section. It's mostly just mathematical finance and PDEs and other fourier shit, optimization, numerical analysis and wavelet/signal processing. Most of the math course listings are in the other categories.

>>9064274
You don't get it. The "applied mathematics" moniker is bullshit that the administrative division of universities came up with for marketing purposes, to give certain courses a veneer of prestige, and get more students enrolled in math (but not actually get them to study math). It's a money grubbing scheme.
What you learn in those courses is applications of mathematics in various domains, often in very sloppy, heuristic ways without proofs. Courses filled with glorified examples/particular cases.

Not. Maths.

>>9064281
>What you learn in those courses is applications of mathematics in various domains, often in very sloppy, heuristic ways without proofs.
t. someone who didn't take any applied math classes

Algebra is just combinatorics on crack.

Prove me wrong.

>>9064284
Of course I didn't. I was too busy actually reading maths to pretend to be reading maths. I've yet to meet a single "applied math" student who knows his subject better than I do. Because it's populated by brainlets who are there to be fleeced. Let's call "applied math" courses a tax on stupidity. The faculty has to get some extra funds from somewhere, right?

>>9064281
I already said it seems somewhat of a meme distinction since most of the courses required don't even fall under the university's definition of "applied", but sure whatever, I don't get it apparently.

>>9064293
How would you know applied math better than applied math students if you weren't reading any applied math?

>>9064295
Good.

>>9064301
suck my dick dude

>>9064300
Because once you actually understand mathematics, using that knowledge when dealing with concrete cases is quite doable, much more so than the reverse. It is the difference between understanding group theory and being able to barely fiddle around with particular examples of groups, for example.
This is true of anything from "mathematical physics" to "mathematical finance". Mathematics is mathematics. Everything else is stamp collecting.

>>9059572
same reason any general may fail.
occasional math threads outside the general.
not allowing brainlets.
no interesting prompts / questions in main post.

>>9064329
Not him, but is that really the case for your applied math classes?

In my university "applied math" means that you take a lot of regular math courses (together with math students) and some engineering courses (together with engineers).

>>9064329
>Everything else is stamp collecting.
Before anyone points it out, I know this was said by Rutherford about physics. He was half-right and half-wrong. Physics without maths is stamp (facts) collecting all the same. What made physics different from shit like biology at that time was that physics heavily relied on mathematics, while biology was a senseless collection of anatomical and ecological minutiae, biological trivia.

>>9064329
>It is the difference between understanding group theory and being able to barely fiddle around with particular examples of groups, for example.
But this isn't what applied math classes are like at all, or at least your university is a poor representative of the general trend which is more in line with >>9064337

>>9064337
>>9064344
I don't see how that is inconsistent with my description of the situation. "Applied math" majors can also take math classes. So what? I'm talking about the purported "applied" "domain" of mathematics.

>>9064361
>I don't see how that is inconsistent with my description of the situation
Because at most universities applied math students take math classes with pure math students, so there's no reason one would come out with an understanding of group theory and the other come out being able to fiddle around with examples of groups.

>>9064361
>"Applied math" majors can also take math classes.
That is not what I was arguing. I was arguing that Applied math majors WILL take a lot of regular math classes. And that no "applied math" class exists at my university.

>"applied" "domain" of mathematics
That is just a description of how useful a certain type of mathematics is in other fields. You could even call group theory "applied maths" because it is used in chemistry. The lines here are obviously very blurred and a lot of things in mathematics can be called "applied".

Someone who studies "applied math" has to learn mathematics which has (most often) applications in engineering, but it is still the same mathematics a math student learns.

>>9064364
>there's no reason
What about the fact that "applied math" students are brainlets? So not only do they study less maths, they're also naturally handicapped in their study. Did you ever wonder why math seems to consistently trail physics by a 2 to 3 points when it comes to average IQ of students? There's your answer.

Fuck "applied mathematics".

>>9064378
I am starting to think the "applied math" students are not the problem here...

>>9064382
>I am starting to think the "applied math" students are not the problem here...
This.

>>9064374
>You could even call group theory "applied maths"
No, you couldn't. Well, of course you could, and people obviously do, but it is a dumb thing to do. That's my whole point: there is no such thing as "applied" mathematics when properly understood. Mathematics as a practice is always applied (within mathematics if not other subjects) and mathematics as a subject is the study of mathematical structures.
Applications of mathematics [math] \neq [/math] mathematics.

>>9064378
>Did you ever wonder why math seems to consistently trail physics by a 2 to 3 points when it comes to average IQ of students?
What is this supposed to be relevant for? It sounds like you're more interested in posturing than the actual math/science.

>>9064395
>What is this supposed to be relevant for?
See >>9064281 and >>9064293
>The "applied mathematics" moniker is bullshit that the administrative division of universities came up with for marketing purposes
>It's a money grubbing scheme.
If there is anything to this hypothesis, you would expect a higher proportion of dupes in applied math majors.

>>9064374
> it is still the same mathematics a math student learns.
lolno, it's watered down and less general.

>>9064393
>there is no such thing as "applied" mathematics when properly understood
Of course there is. "Applied mathematics" is mathematics which is used outside of mathematics itself. That is a perfectly fine definition for a term.

If a physicist is using mathematics for a problem in physics, he is applying mathematics to something outside of mathematics. Then the mathematics he is using becomes "applied mathematics".

"Applied math" is just a description of a certain sub field of mathematics and mathematicians are not the ones who decide what is or what isn't. If it is used outside of mathematics it is "applied".

>Applications of mathematics ≠ mathematics.
That is obviously true. A physicist solving a physical problem using mathematics is not doing math but physics.

>>9064409
Neither of those posts seem to give any relevance to your point about IQ. What was it supposed to be relevant for? It sounds like you're more interested in posturing than the actual math/science.

>>9064418
Please red my post before that. I just posted that at my university there are no "applied math" classes. Just people who take regular math classes (together with actual math majors) and engineering classes (with engineers).

There is absolutely no difference between math classes for people who study "applied math" or just math.

>>9064420
>Neither of those posts seem to give any relevance to your point about IQ.
Are you trying to say that everyone is equally likely to be duped?

>>9064427
>Are you trying to say that everyone is equally likely to be duped?
No, I'm saying you haven't made clear what this supposed IQ gap has to do with anything.

>>9064419
The purported subfield is non-existent. It is taxonomically vacuous. "Mathematics outside mathematics" is not mathematics.
>"Applied mathematics" is mathematics which is used outside of mathematics itself.
Then it's just short-hand for "applications of mathematics", hence not mathematics. Glad we agree.

>>9064428
What part of
>you would expect a higher proportion of dupes in applied math majors.
is so hard to understand?

>>9064430
>"Mathematics outside mathematics" is not mathematics.
Read that sentence again. It makes no logical sense.

>Then it's just short-hand for "applications of mathematics"
No. Please read what I wrote before posting.

Take something like Functional analysis, a field of math which at its beginning was quite "pure", but then physicists used Functional analysis in their field, they applied a certain field of math to physics. Functional analysis didn't cease to be mathematics at that point, but it became "applied", since it was used outside of mathematics itself.

>>9064433
>What part of
>>you would expect a higher proportion of dupes in applied math majors.
>is so hard to understand?
None of it, I just don't see you keep repeating it. If you're including applied math students in measuring math students IQ, are you not also including applied physics students when measuring physics students IQ? If so your point still seems like a tangent.

>>9064430
>The purported subfield is non-existent.
The subfield exists whether you personally agree with it or not.

Or do you not think the real numbers exist either?

>>9064180
It's not every single sequence ength, but only the maximum sequence length for a starting number below x

File: 1466738715701.png (152KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 500x500px

"Applied ""mathematics""" can't really be shown to exist.

>>9064438
>Read that sentence again. It makes no logical sense.
That's because your usage of "applied mathematics" makes no sense.

>>9064448
Ok, eye-balling the graph, I see that somewhat makes sense. But how did you come up with this approximation of the maximum sequence length below x?

>>9064473
I plotted the ln(x/maxlength) and I had x growing as a power of 2. The graph looked absurdly linear for larger numbers, so I reversed the thing and came to the formula a*x^b= maxlength. measuring a and b resulted in slightly over 70 for a and 0.14something for b. So I tried around a bit and found that these weird constants match nicely.

>>9064473
Have some numbers:
4 7
8 16
16 17
32 111
64 112
128 112
256 127
512 143
1024 178
2048 179
4096 237
8192 261
16384 275
32768 307
65536 339
131072 353
262144 442
524288 469
1048576 524
2097152 556
4194304 596
8388608 664
16777216 704
33554432 705
67108864 949

>>9064477
Up to what number did you check?

>>9064489
As far as this
>>9064483

>>9064489
>>9064483
See if this still happens with much larger numbers. 70 million is a very small set.

>>9064498
I'm saying this because I'm not sure if this is a known numerical result viz. the Collatz conjecture. If you can check that it holds for up to quite large numbers (think [math] 10^{50} [/math] or more) than you can write a paper about it and try to submit it to some journal.

(Keep in mind that this is not my area of expertise and it might be a known result already.)

>>9064498
Checked it now. After 60 million it fails quite suddenly.

>>9064519
Actually, considering how Collatz has been checked only as far as about 5*10^18, just check it up to a comparable order. 10^15.

>>9064527
Ah, that's such a shame. That approximation was very nice looking. But it was to be expected I guess. Collatz sequences have a very chaotic behaviour.

>>9064530
well, the approximation still works very well for numbers below 60 million, so maybe it is still holding some truth

Currently pursuing a PhD in L'Hôpital's rule. Keeps me busy and fairly entertained as it is an interesting field to pursue but the employment chances are slim to none, however if im lucky i expect to be able to work in research.

>>9064540
60 million is nothing. You might as well fit a curve to the first 6 values and claim to be "holding some truth".

>>9064639
Should have gone for that PhD in triple integrals under Jacob Barnett as we told you.

>>9064696
My IQ is merely in the 140's so I don't believe my intellectual capabilities would have been enough for a PhD in integral-related fields. Therefore I decided to focus entirely on derivation which is easier. My university was offering positions on L'H and on the chain rule of single variable functions and the first one seems infinitely more interesting.

>>9060409
yes son that shit is hectic fun

t. mech eng

>>9064700
>IQ is merely in the 140's
Fuck off brainlet.

previous OP was about the IMU right? did /mg/ go to olympiads?

>>9064722
IMO*

>>9064722
Nope, we are too smart to go to such a brainlet competition

>>9064728
What about Alice? Are you still here Alice? Give is a sign.

File: 23423432432.png (137KB, 482x651px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 482x651px

>>9064741
In Baden-Württemberg? Looks nice.

>>9064746
Germany has grande écoles too?

File: 0007.jpg (89KB, 624x576px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 624x576px

>>9064750
I don't know. I've never been to Germany.

>>9064790
>>9064773
>>9064771
>>9064765
>>9064760
>>9064758
>>9064755
>>9064752
>>9064746

Dumb animeposters

Should we retire this general?

>>9064887
Slut!

File: fuck-anime-bottom-text-im-changing-my-name-16061454.png (168KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 500x500px

>>9064752(you)
>>9064755(you)
>>9064758(you)
>>9064760(you)
>>9064771(you)
>>9064771(you)
>>9064773(you)
>>9064887(you)
>>9064898(you)


>>9064874

yes

>>9062494
im interested to hear what conjecture/details on your method

Which subjects are critical for a general undergrad math education and which ones don't matter that much?

File: CT.png (230KB, 500x342px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 500x342px

>>9065866
You'll be fucked if you don't do cat theory during your first two years.