/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5215395
>The permuration group is Abelian.
omg, so by Cayleys theorem, every group is abelian?

>5215418
you're talking countable infinite or uncountable?
I hardly thing it's possible, but let me think for a second. There will be some left action argument.

>+dW for work
>no bar on dW, but one on dQ
>not dropping \hbar and then dropping it
>writing down \epislon_0 and it's gay friends
>dropping c and then not dropping it
>not knowing how much space you need to write down maxwell equation
>squeezing in ideal gas law
>writing \hbar and \pi like a 12yo girl
>writting m and then m_0
>no d'alembert
>\vec over force, then not
>no \vec over nabla
>same with momentum
why.

>>4142072
>I have is disconnected half-knowledge.

I have connected half-knowledge

but it's not path-connected.

>>4060697
I was just wondering where your posts are :D

448 KB

>>4026216
:D

@topic:
>Society and it's business value real intelligence too lowly
I don't know that seems to be self-comforting to me. Teamwork is clearly the better, that is more effective way to achieve scientific breakthroughs most of the time. Now you are maybe above average intelligent and you think this makes you better than clever social people - but if you're honest, then they are "the better people" and your kind of intelligence isn't the relevant thing. Then it's just "fair" that the autistic brainiac doesn't get the goodies. Just as fair as if the opposite was the case. Why should the non-intelligent people suffer, so to speak?

if there is no \sigma, only \tau, then h_{ab} is just 1 and the action reads
T/2 int X_\mu(\tau)·X^\mu(\tau)
i.e. (m/2)v^2
(aside from the curved backgroud metric g_{\mu\nu})

>>3998058
Also notice that if you're interested in the functions X_\mu(\sigma,\tau), which are coordinate vectors in 26 dim space, you can also view X as a 26-component field in a 2-dimensional space parameterized by \sigma and \tau. This is why you'll often read the term (2-dimensional) conformal field theory in these wikipedia articles (and in the string theory papers of course).

Aside from the geometric questions regarding Calabi-Yau manifolds and whatnot, sting theory will formally look like a 2-dimensional quantum field theory. And because 2-dimensional field theories are always nice, string theory is quite nice too. I'd argue that this is the appeal. The questionable physical reality of string theory is the other side of it.