/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4175832

>men are basically complete slags if they're single.
... Alright, EK. Enough.
>non-single guys are actually really faithful, they hardly ever cheat, they're tempted, but they never do.
See, this is why we fucking have problems.

This is not true, and you are making generalizations.

I know single guys who are extremely prudish, and I also know men who are in relationships, but complete sluts who could not give a shit about commitment.

In fact, I can say most men/guys I know cheat on their women. Fuck, nigga.

And,
>Not science, saged, hidden, reported, called the cops, uninstalled windows.
>uninstalled windows

Fucking A, mate.

>>4175656
>She's an attention whore, unashamedly so. Anyone who trips must be,

troof.

>shut up you juicy bitch

officially a meme. EK, you are called a juicy bitch or JOOCY bitch. any incarnation of "JUICY bitch" is fine.

done & done.

>mfw I'm a mathematics person and I thought you meant R, the real number line.

>>4137602
>>4137602

also,
>six years

c'mon, it can't be that long. since you're a junior, i'm sure you've taken an excessive amount of your cores and other classes already. the BSc needs a few science courses so, while you wait to retake that physics class, load up on them. bio, chem , organic chem, etc. it'll also give you an inch up against physicists who just have the BA.

>>4137602

if you're already a junior, take some extra classes in physics(electives) and wait your senior year to retake that class.

seriously bro, keep the hope alive. i know that feel about once a year courses, though. i was lucky to get into some of mine this year.

>>4137591

oh, that bragging and bravado. it'll be destroyed after you get through your proof courses.

>>4137578

> won't even be able to continue my physics major.

why won't you be able to continue it?

cheer up. failing one class doesn't automatically exempt you from being a physicist, you know. at least, i don't know what university actually does that.

here, at my uni, it literally takes like 3+ fails for the department to drop you.

>>4134017
Personally, I'm not into drugs.

Secondly, I've seen where cannabis can slow down the reaction time/speed of some people. Furthermore, I fervently believe it stupefies people down after prolonged use, no matter how much one attempts to control their usage.

Then again, I'm somewhat biased against drugs. My cousin is currently enduring a severe drug addiction and I have seen her writhe in pain, cry and steal from me due to her drug addiction. Feels bad, man. :(

>>4134007
Holy shit.

Did not expect that aspergers explosion.

>>4133979

Einstein is a bad example.

Einstein was a womanizer; so were the majority of the physicists/scientists back in the day. Hell, Schrodinger fucked his pal's girlfriend/wife.

Dirac would've been a much stronger example. Maybe Niels Bohr, but Niels was into soccer and generally very sociable. It's only relatively recently that this whole, 'hur dur scientists r aspies' shit became widespread. If you name a scientist between 1800 and 2000, I can basically confirm that they were pretty sociable/fun loving human beings.

Hell, Feynman was into drug experimentation and drinking.

The whole dilemma with OP is his inability to see that human beings are much, much more complicated than that. Human beings cannot be contrasted in that manner; there are several clear representative examples which showcase otherwise. I know the supposed ''drinkers'' who are insanely depressed, but extremely intelligent in their field. I also know the supposed ''thinkers'' who are very, very happy doing what they love and are moderately comfortable.

Hell, I drink every other fucking weekend(Hennessy, whiskey, malts, etc) and I still do mathematics. I'm not necessarily sad, either.

"Biology is a soft science" is a meme started months ago. I was here when it was spammed incessantly.

Like drones, the lot of /sci/ hopped atop of it. It was finally pushed down our throats so much that people started coming up with reasons as to why it really is a soft science. It's nothing more than a meme. It falls in the same category as 'engineers are fags.'

/sci/ most popular memes as follows:

>engineers are gay/fags/gay pride parade picture with engineering topic discussed
>biology is a soft science
>economics is not a science
>EK is a bitch/cunt/asshole
>Harriet is a goody-too-shoes who defends EK too much.

The last one is true; EK being a bitch/cunt/asshole is debatable. I've no qualms with her, though I was one of the first people to openly disrespect her. I did it in jest, though, and didn't think people would take me seriously.

The only meme is I partially agree with is economics not being a science, and that's not necessarily a disrespectful comment, depending on how you take it. It's a relatively rigorous field in its own right, but it fails to be a science simply because it is haphazard and there are barely any axioms to actually hold it together. Science relies on axioms and tests/hypotheses; economics fails those requirements.

Is it soft? Clearly, it isn't. It's one of the more difficult/rigorous fields and it incorporates actual mathematics. Just because it doesn't fall under the category of science, however, doesn't mean it's shitty. Hell, Mathematics doesn't even fall under the category of Science in the minds of most people. Fuck it.

>>3881766
There are only two people on this board I'd consider tripfriends:

Josef and TN5 or whatever,

ChemGuy is fucking win.

Everyone else is in fag haven. Even I am. So are you.

Inurades is the king of all of the fags in fag haven. God, I hate that son of a bitch. EK is cool,

>>3527266

Spot fucking on. Wow. Good fucking post, dude.

Personally, I'm interested in Group Theory and Differential Geometry.

>>3517633

I agree with you.

The dilemma here is that, by definition, a set contains N members which can be arranged in any pattern. As such, there's no way we can actually say that
>>3517599
is mathematically viable. If there was an additional constraint to it, say that the set {x, n} is NOT equal to {n, x}, then we could probably come up with a proof of some sort.

Given the 'commutativity' of sets, it's impossible. Brute forcing seems like the viable way to go, albeit very messy. What you could do is try to manipulate the subsets of your original set. We'll call your original set A.

>>3487995

And furthermore, if you're going for a M.S. or a Doctorate, you're already making a powerful mark on the world. The thesis requires the candidate to publish something completely original. It cannot be rehashed at all. This alone can create ground breaking work, or lead to ground breaking work.

See Richard Hamilton. He published a paper on the Ricci curvature and a rough sketch of how to go about solving the Poincare conjecture; Perelman read the paper and published his articles.

What the majority of you guys fail to realize is that the multitude of the individuals you so revere or idolize actually stood atop the ''shoulders of Giants,'' as Newton would say.

Let's take Einstein, for example. While Einstein is considered a genius, he actually implemented mathematics developed by Riemann and Lorentz. Look it up: Riemannian Geometry shapes the concept of General Relativity, more or less. Secondly, Lorentz was the one who worked out the harder mathematical equations, and Lorentzian Geometry is heavily underrated. They're never heard of, but both of them provided the foundation for Einstein's success.

Secondly, Modern Science as we know it was still being fleshed out; as such, a multitude of individuals discovered an enormous amount of information. Hell, back then, you had fucking GRADUATE STUDENTS writing papers on new discoveries. Physics really took off in the mid-to-late 1800s; before then, it still didn't gain an immense amount of momentum simply because it didn't have an enormous amount of momentum. Discoveries were being made within decades of one another back then; sometimes, years between one another.

Also, WWII was ridiculous. The push for the creation of an atomic bomb catapulted Science to greater heights. Scientists from Germany and America were constantly and consistently working out models, mathematical formulas, etc. It was such a hectic time, but such a beautiful time for the scientific mind.

Since the 1970s or so, we've only had a handful of worthwhile discoveries: Wiles' proof of the Fermat problem & Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture. Those are based in Pure Mathematics, however, and not Physics. Of course, there's Hawkings' theory, but that hasn't been proven conclusively.

Josef is in God tier mode. He knows more shit than more than half of anonymous.

ChemGuy, who doesn't tripfag, is in God tier mode for the same reasons as well. Mad Scientist is a role-player, at best.

>>3371649

Christ, man; give us something to fucking work with.

Utilize the law of ln(natural log).

ln 18^(x-3) = ln 5^(8x)
(x-3) ln 18 = 8x ln 5
x ln 18 - 3 ln 18 = 8x ln 5
x ln 18 - 8x ln 5 = + 3 ln 18
x(ln 18 - 8 ln 5) = 3 ln 18
x = (3 ln 18) / (ln 18 - 8 ln 5)

It needs to be simplified a bit, but that's the answer.

>>3371490

Here: http://www.austincc.edu/jthom/MasterProductMethod.html

>>3371490

Not for every quadratic, no. For these types, though? Yes.

Some quadratics can easily be solved utilizing the MP method or the basic factoring method whereby a=1 in the ax^2 + bx + c = 0 format. Others need the quadratic formula.

>>3371421
>>3371433
>>3371450

The fuck are you guys doing? Why so complex? The MP method is fine for problems like these.

>>3370842

Utilize the MP method.

MP stands for Master Product.

Step 1: You have your equation in the ax^2 + bx + c = 0 format. Multiply a and c. So, your product is ac.
Step 2: Find two factors of ac whereby when you add/subtract them, you obtain your bx.
Step 3: Rewrite your original equation in the format of ax^2 + ax + cx + c, whereby ax + cx = bx.
Step 4: Factor by grouping.

Let's do this with your question.

12x^2 + 5x - 2 = 0

So, 12 * -2 = -24. Factors of -24? Let's list them.

6, 4; 12, 2; 3, 8; 24, 1.

Okay, so let's analyze these.
6+4 = 10, and 6-4 = 2. So, it can't be 6, 4. Crossed out.
12 + 2 = 14, 12 - 2 = 10. Crossed out of the realm of possibilities.
8 + 3 = 11, 8 - 3 = 5. Oh, now we're getting somewhere. So, 8*(-3) = -24 and 8 + (-3) = 5. Perfect!

Rewritten, we see:
12x^2 - 3x + 8x - 2 = 0
3x(4x - 1) + 2(4x - 1) = 0
(3x + 2)(4x - 1) = 0

Solve for x. x = 1/4; x = -2/3

Hope I helped.

>>3371359

Also, Inurades is a batshit insane psychopath, but I like him.

I don't like Mad Scientist. Really haven't seen Coffee Mug post a lot.

>>3371299

EK was/is a popular tripfag on /sci/ who began to post relatively good threads/help people out. Along with myself, Inurades and Josef, she was apart of the original group of /sci/tripfags. She, unlike the rest of us, began to feel some sort of superiority complex after a while and started trolling/bullshitting on /sci/ and completely fucking it up.

I joked with her, saying I hated her, but she was a REALLY good tripfag in the beginning. She despised HW questions, for example, but would give a concise answer if the question was posed properly; she was prone to be wrong from time to time, but learned from her mistakes and never held her head above others with a semblance of superiority. After a while, however, she just became...shitty. Everyone who was on /sci/ back in the day can attest to how really good she was in the very beginning.

Josef is still a bro. By far, he is the most knowledgeable tripfag on /sci/. ChemGuy, who doesn't trip/namefag, is formidable or better. You'll know ChemGuy when you see him.

And if you say you've never seen me, that's fine too. I was around in the very early days, stopped tripping, and just started discussing mathematics when the threads came up. I tried to start a "/sci/ quiz daily" day for Mathematics, but it never really kicked off. When I did have those threads, however, they were relatively good and people enjoyed them.