Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2017/01/28: An issue regarding the front page of /jp/ has been fixed. Also, thanks to all who contacted us about sponsorship.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 639 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_20181212190557.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216292 No.10216292 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

2.5-3 fucking months. Always drawing on that life force. How did I not know about it earlier, all retards claiming it's healthy to cum.

Arrrrgh. Homeostasis, why have I betrayed you.



File: 113 KB, 1680x941, 74769027-image_544925f376980.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216261 No.10216261 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

The more I think about math the more it seems like an arbitrary system that only works in so far as it corresponds to physics. There is no abstract, higher mathematical truths, things like Euler's identity aren't deep aesthetic things of beauty. They're obvious consequences of a self prescribed system whose rules are,basically, a kind of grammar. There's no real mathematical truth, only real physical truth.
Imagine if I say "The bottle is blue." That sentence is true insofar as it corresponds to a reality in which the referred bottle is blue. It's true (or correct) in itself insofar as it follows English grammatical conventions, but a sentence that isn't true in itself can't correspond to a reality at all. Saying "Those bottle are blue." Is a grammatical mistake and thus corresponds to no reality at all, even if there is a blue bottle.
Similarity "2+2=4" is true insofar as there are two things of two in reality to be referred to and clearly seen that they're all together 4. "2+2=5" is incorrect in its own mathematical-grammatical rules and thus has no corresponding reality just like "Those bottle is blue."
To merely say “2+2=4” when there are no groups of objects to refer to is “grammatically” / mathematically correct. But it isn’t true in any sense. It’s like saying “The bottle is blue” with no bottle in sight. The sentence is grammatically correct and meaningful, but has no truth-value.
Grammatical, and thus Mathematical, truth have no higher or purer value or privilege. They're all just truth of convention. Their “correctness” depends on the correct use of grammar or math. Their truth-conditions are determined solely by the realities they correspond to.
>t.slightly drunk math and philosophy major soon to change to statistics and philosophy because at least statisticians don't have the ego to pretend they’re doing some higher level buddha shit

>> No.10216266

>>10216261
>works in so far as it corresponds to physics
What are photons then, waves or particles? Each "traditional" model comes from the way we use the math to represent them. In reality, it appears that certain physical things somehow do both, but in different scenarios.

So, does it really "work" in physics any more than it works in what you are describing?

>inb4 we just don't know enough yet.

I suppose it's possible that maybe someday, there will be a single model/object that can be applied to these wave-particles that doesn't need to use two different treatments for different things.

>> No.10216295

Math abstracts the objects it may represent. You could think of it like algebra. You take a number and substitute a letter. Whatever you do to the letter also applies to the number.

When you do math, you represent objects as numbers, you calculate, and then you infer that what is true for the numbers is also true for the objects.

The numbers are a thing onto their own that are easier to grasp than objects for the purpose of calculations.



File: 503 KB, 3796x774, IMG_20181214_225625~2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216245 No.10216245 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Can I get a hint for part (a)?

>> No.10216255

>>10216245
Since there is no floor, x has to be rational -- i.e. x = 2001/n

Where Floor[x * Floor[ x * Floor[x] ] ] = n
2001/286 works

>> No.10216257

Trial and error. f(x) = x^4 on the integers, and f is increasing, so you don't need to go any higher than say 10

>> No.10216262

>>10216255
>>10216257

ty!!!

>> No.10216283

>>10216245
It has to be a rational number of the form 2001/n since the result of the floor function is an integer.

It has to be between 6 and 7 since 2001 is between 6^4 and 7^4. Start checking at the closest number below 7 since the floor function is going to keep reducing the numbers being multiplied. Since 2001/7 is closest to 286 that is the first n we check. It works, so the solution is 2001/286.

2002/7 = 286 so f(2002/286) > 2002. f(2002/287) < 2002 so there is no solution.



File: 25 KB, 835x367, images.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216241 No.10216241 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Hey anons, Im a brazilian fag and I'm decided to have a chemical engineering degree.
I would like to know from you guys around the world, if you know some about the job market for chemical engineers out there



File: 57 KB, 323x499, 33EC4149-9DC2-474E-8E56-A82F7582DC41.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216200 No.10216200 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>experimental data always has multiple interpretations; arbitrarily- decided- upon consensus determines the “correct” interpretation
>science only appears to “progress” because most scientists operate within same paradigm
>scientific education involves dogmatically asserting assumptions necessary to support paradigm

Well shit. Turns out science isn’t any more special or objective than any other academic field.
I’m losing interest, anons. I thought science was the contemporary world’s refutation of the ignorance of the past. Turns out we’re just as naive and ignorant as they were.
Why do we think we’re so special? Why do we think we’ve finally figured things out? Every age before us thought the exact same thing and they all turned out to be wrong. So will we. The scientific paradigm is a contemporary fad which will end and be replaced by some other means of acquiring “””knowledge”””

>> No.10216210

>>10216200
>experimental data always has multiple interpretations; arbitrarily- decided- upon consensus determines the “correct” interpretation
Not always, for example I don't think anyone is seriously going to argue about the interpretation of Newtonian mechanics. Even relativity, which completely upended its foundations, is in practice only a small correction except in extreme limits that aren't typically encountered for all practical purposes.
So no, I wouldn't say that science is just as naive and ignorant as pre-scientific attempts at knowledge.
Thanks for reminding me I need to read this book though, maybe I'll change my mind and fall into despair as well

>> No.10216236

>>10216210
>Not always, for example I don't think anyone is seriously going to argue about the interpretation of Newtonian mechanics. Even relativity, which completely upended its foundations, is in practice only a small correction except in extreme limits that aren't typically encountered for all practical purposes.
Kuhn actually addresses this point. He argues that quantum mechanics is actually something fundamentally different from Newtonian mechanics because Newtonian mechanics is more than just formulas- it’s inextricably tied to the assumptions that mass and time are constant. Sure, Einstein took hints from Newton, but the system he created is a model of a fundamentally different world.

But yeah, definitely read it. Even if you don’t buy the arguments it’ll give you a good picture of where scientific paradigms cone from and how they progress and die.

>> No.10216258

>>10216236
I guess whether you have a problem with this depends on how autistic you are about knowing the "truth" about reality, if that exists and is intelligible to humans. My gut instinct is to say that if a model can be used to predict phenomena well enough to be used in practice, that already counts as having "figured things out" at least on a fundamentally higher level than not having a model at all.

>> No.10216274

>>10216258
but that’s lame

>> No.10216291

>>10216274
Why? Understanding can only be verified when it's validated against real experience anyway. The fact that there are so many cranks and pseudoscientists should attest to that. If it doesn't predict, the odds that the "understanding" is a delusion in the first place are just too high. If you don't like that, you might as well just stick to pure mathematics.



File: 19 KB, 277x435, 41ddqgAjcML._SX316_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216187 No.10216187 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

All mathematics without a memory component is 100% abstract and arbitrary.

>Prove me wrong.

Alternatively what field of mathematics do you feel describes memory perfectly.

>inb4 binary

1 replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.10216190

set theory

>> No.10216230

>>10216190
Could you provide your relational map/reasoning, please?

>> No.10216260

>>10216187
Noetherian hereditary abelian categories satisfying Serre duality

>> No.10216288

>>10216260
And this word salad achieves...?

>> No.10216294

>>10216288
It's a field with no memory component that's only 30% abstract and arbitrary



File: 3.88 MB, 2215x2215, The_Sounds_of_Earth_Record_Cover_-_GPN-2000-001978.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216174 No.10216174 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Did NASA have anyone independently try to decode these discs to make sure our instructions are clear? What makes is think aliens will have any idea what any of this shit is?

2 replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.10216269

>>10216174
No idea if they could figure out the "return address" but the sound should be pretty straightforward. They should notice the correlation between the waveforms on the first groove of the record and the diagram on the back and they don't need an actual record player to pull the data. Decoding our language so that it's not just a few hours of gibberish would probably be the hardest part

>> No.10216281

>>10216174
What I've always wondered is how the fuck would someone actually obtain this without destroying it. People don't just keep giant nets around their planet. From far away it would just look like some debris and if there ever were a super advanced well-space-travelled civilization you would think they would have some astroid protecting system. Like automated lasers to prevent random crap from hitting their satellites.

If it got pulled into an atmosphere I doubt it would survive. If it didn't melt already it would be shattered into a million pieces when it hit the ground.

I know, it's an absurd argument because the very idea that someone seriously believed this would be a guaranteed success of any sort is just delusion. Cool idea, but there really doesn't need to be too much thought into something that has an unfathomably low chance of ever happening.

>> No.10216284

>>10216269
There’s no way to determine what the greetings actually are, but it’s a safe assumption that they’re greetings.

>> No.10216287

>>10216281
I just figure we’ll pick it up with a spaceship in a few hundred years. It’ll spend literal hundreds of thousands of years just drifting through interstellar void.

>> No.10216296

>>10216269
>hardest part
It would be an impossible part, not just impractical. Imagine if someone tried encoding a message not only using unkown patterns but also kept introducing literally completely unrelated languages. For all they know, "hello" and "bonjour" might be from the same language, they might mean anything or they might mean nothing. Also, saying hello a bunch of times isn't very much for context. We are probably just causing them a massive headache over absolutely useless information.



File: 24 KB, 300x300, revenge-weapon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216113 No.10216113 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>be me 15 brit fag
>in physics
>learning about waves of the electromagnetic spectrum
>name every wave in the correct order and even name the wavelengths
>get asked to do everyone's physics homework
>shit
>don't do it just write random numbers
>they find out
>get corned by 6 chads
>get beaten up
>worth it

>> No.10216136

autism

>> No.10216143

cool blog

>> No.10216148

>>10216113
Wait are you saying you had homework to list the names for various wavelengths and you answered with random numbers?



File: 5 KB, 540x218, integral.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216094 No.10216094 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>do you know how to do anything useful to society that can be used in a practical way to enhance people's lives?
>no, but I know to solve pic related

the absolute state of calculus faggots

>> No.10216131

>>10216094
>OP wants to enhance people's lives
You have the mentality of a servant
Be a good goyim and serve your masters

>> No.10216211

I use calculus all the time to enhance peoples lives. I'm sure /hpg/ is pleased with my work.

>> No.10216217

t. underage



File: 21 KB, 322x293, 1544733204716.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216075 No.10216075 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Who else is mathematically illiterate here? By that, I mean they are completely incapable of understanding the notations and logic.

The only thing I've ever understood intuitively is what it means to take a derivative in its most basic sense of finding the instantaneous rate of change at a given point. I cannot go beyond this to understand differential equations, and other fields of mathematics.

5 replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.10216141

>>10216132
If that's the case, I doubt you actually know what a derivative is either, sorry anon

>> No.10216146

>>10216133
The way you worded it sounds funky to me I'm not sure if the reason I still don't understand it is because of that.

I couldn't even understand the most basic differential equation I was exposed to which was dy/dx = y

>> No.10216150

>>10216141
No, I truly understood the derivation of nx^n-1

I think of it in terms of driving in a car. It's directly applicable.

>> No.10216154

>>10216150
Well then, if your car was a self-driving one which was programmed so that its speed was determined by its position along a race track, so that the farther along it was the faster it went, its motion would be described by a differential equation.

>> No.10216194

I’m m in the same boat. Calc 3 is my limit. In calc 2 i’m Pretty sure the teacher game me a C out of pity, because I certainly didn’t understand much of it.



File: 395 KB, 700x525, 1179440716061.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216035 No.10216035 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Is it possible to avoid freezing to death by constantly eating?

>> No.10216074

>>10216035
What's the logic behind this idea?

>> No.10216080

>>10216035
Depends on what you are eating, if its poison then yes you will avoid freezing to death.

>> No.10216149

maybe he Think about the calores we Lost can be quickly recoveered by eating a lot.

no Anon you can not because you are felling and getind Cold anyways you gong die if you dont get warm



File: 28 KB, 500x433, 1544790114488.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216020 No.10216020 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

are trannies real women?

7 replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.10216191

>>10216095
obvious tranny propaganda

>> No.10216203
File: 96 KB, 519x370, Julius_loses_his_faith_in_humanity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216203

>>10216020
>are trannies real women?

That you even have to ask this.

NO! they are mentally ill men.

>> No.10216207

Yes but not all men are transgender, even if they think they are
Also transgender women are not desirable because they can not bare children, for now.

>> No.10216273

>>10216020
It is accepted in the most scientifically advanced societies. So according to most people's definition of I FREAKING LOVE SCIENCE it is.

>> No.10216279
File: 59 KB, 800x678, c57f2dd673b141fcdf3e74474a0e0882.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10216279

>>10216095
>he couldnt contain his tranny autism to 1 (one) thread
555-come on now



File: 23 KB, 361x499, 41DzQMX-RcL._SX359_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10215967 No.10215967 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

I know about pic related, Book of Proof and How to Prove it, but which of them is the best?

1 replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.10216056

>>10216051
Why are they memes exactly?

Do you recommend Strang's "Introduction to Linear Algebra"?

>> No.10216064

>>10216056
They're not "memes" per say, but it's probably best to try a Linear Algebra book first and only go to these if you can't understand how to do anything. Strang is okay, but won't necessarily teach you how to do proofs as well as some texts will. Strang is great for learning linear algebra for the first time and just fine for learning proofs. Axler and Friedberg, while a little more advanced, are also more proof-based.

>> No.10216071

>>10215967
Polya "How to Solve it"
Jean-Yves Girard "Proof and Types

>> No.10216239

>>10215967
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematics#Proofs_and_Mathematical_Reasoning

>> No.10216248

>>10216051
>proof books are memes, dont waste your time
This.



File: 39 KB, 580x388, albert-einstein-219675_6401-e1411587981927.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10215912 No.10215912 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Simple phisics question. If you convert a formula e=mc2 into m=e/c2 why can't we create even a little bit of mass?

4 replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.10216047

>>10215922
>>10215966
You're dumb, we can't create energy but we can sure as hell move it around

>>10215933
yep, particle accelerators work by this. They make more mass than the particles had at rest.

>> No.10216049

>>10216047
yes but that requires mass. is there a way to make mass out of energy alone

>> No.10216050

>>10216049
Yeah, kugelblitz

>> No.10216052

>>10216049
Yes, collide two high energy photons together.

>> No.10216067

>>10215912
In a way I believe we can create mass. If you excite an electron in an atom it will become more massive due to the increase in energy.



File: 123 KB, 1318x741, rage-meme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10215886 No.10215886 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>trivial

die you fucking faggot



File: 62 KB, 1280x720, nigga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10215871 No.10215871 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Why do other fields of mathematics exists if everything is just geometry?

>> No.10215876

>everything is just geometry
[citation needed]

>> No.10215880

>>10215871
jews

jews can't compete with europeans at spatial reasoning so they invented areas of math where their talmudic logical gymnastics give them an edge

>> No.10215904

>>10215871
a lot of geometry is really hard to visualize or draw pictures of so you have to represent in abstract symbolic ways. that's basically what algebra and analysis are for

>> No.10215921

>>10215871
bc geometry is hard

also i'm a jew and despite logic and symbolic manipulation being some of my least fav approaches to math, i'm needlessly good at it. so maybe there's something to >>10215880

>> No.10215968

it's not that everytihng is geometry but rathre that everything can be expressed geometrically



File: 12 KB, 1152x648, Retarded thiosulfate.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10215850 No.10215850 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

How are you supposed to draw the orbital overlap between the two sulfurs in this molecule?
This is hybridization, so I need the orbitals to look like balloons.

>> No.10215855

I forgot to add the last lone pairs on the oxygen, but that's not important.

>> No.10215890

your question makes no sense.what the fuck are you talking about with balloons... Pin bonds vs sigma bonds? Are you asking for the MO diagram?
Also that Lewis structure is wrong

>> No.10215914
File: 59 KB, 638x479, hb11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10215914

>>10215890
I copied it from a question in the text book (I know I forgot to add the final lone pairs on the oxygens).
Yes, I am talking about pi bonds and sigma bonds. I need to draw it in a similar way to pic related.



File: 8 KB, 225x224, 1503814063618.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10215845 No.10215845 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>The proof is left as an exercise.
>Think.
>The proof is trivial.
>Check Theorem 2.5

I FUCKING HATE MATHEMATICIANS SO FUCKING MUCH.
WRITE THE GODDAMN PROOF YOU FUCKING ANIMALS, I USED MY MONEY BUYING YOUR BOOKS AND ALL I GOT IS THE LAZINESS OF A GOD AWFUL SPERG.

5 replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.10216268

>>10216244

This is accurate. If you're just reading the textbook like a novel then in the end you're not going to get much out of it.

>> No.10216275

you have to be able to think to study pure math.

I would suggest switching majors to something like electrical engineering. a lot of stupid people seem to be able to get through EE.

>> No.10216277

>>10215845
>he pays for textbooks

>> No.10216278

>>10216247
If you don't understand how the proofs are trivial, you need to re-read previous chapters.

>> No.10216282

>>10215845
>he can't derive the results he wants by introspection
>buying a textbook to begin with



File: 12 KB, 480x360, AI.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10215841 No.10215841 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

why would they even bother visiting earth


https://www.authorea.com/users/251981/articles/342770--coming-to-earth-superintelligence-and-the-fermi-paradox

>> No.10215842

>>10215841
>Fermi Paradox
Not a paradox

>> No.10215863

>>10215841
>Fermi Paradox
popsci garbage, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>> No.10215894

>>10215863

Would they not transcend tho?

>> No.10215928

>>10215841
I would expect a civilization with singularity level tech to be sending out satellites to every star just out of curiosity. I think the solution to the fermi paradox is that intelligent life is so rare that there may only be 1 intelligent civilization in a galaxy if that many. It's possible that life at all is so rare that we are the most advanced civilization in the entire universe.

>> No.10215969

>>10215928

apparently a singularity level tech civilisation wont need to send anything out because technically they would be all knowing like gods.

They would have created their own multiverse with everything played out billions of times over.



File: 97 KB, 700x875, flight_attendant_stuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10215812 No.10215812 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Can someone compare and contrast the engineering and physics versions of the following courses? How do they differ and which one is more difficult generally?

Engineering Dynamics vs. Classical Mechanics (upper level physics undergrad course)

Engineering Thermodynamics vs. Thermal Physics

Electromagnetism for Electrical Engineers vs. Electromagnetism for physicists

1 replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.10215996

>>10215972
Yeah but you need to flesh it out a little.
What kind of luggage? what color are her panties? Does she have kids? Is she married? How many people will fuck her?

>> No.10216039

>>10215996
Improv is very important in porn.

>> No.10216090

>>10215972
>>10215996
>Stewardess forgets to put on panties
>goes to work and has to be in this very awkward position
>someone notices
>she sees him staring
>they fuck in the bathroom
I sell this script for 5 shekels.

>> No.10216166

>>10215972
yea that doesn't sound rapey or anything

>> No.10216169

>>10215812

On average, most engineering dynamics courses only solve solid-body problems with Newton's laws + some stuff on vibrations, whereas the physics courses look at Hamiltonian/Lagrangian formulations too plus perhaps some wave physics.

Engineering thermodynamics consists largely of looking up psychrometric tables with some heat engine stuff thrown in, thermal physics is far more statistical and rigorous but doesn't look at "real systems" very much.

Physics electromagnetism is lots of vector calculus exercises with essentially no circuits or non-idealized application, E&M for EE I gather has a lot more in the way of analyzing the behavior of common real-world systems like antennas and cables at the expense of the more esoteric stuff.

I have taken all of these courses other than E&M for EE and am an engineer.



View post