/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12682304
This should get you started (assuming it formats correctly)

Let x be a human then
[math]G(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} p & \quad \text{if }x \text{ has XY chromosomes} \\ v & \quad \text{if }x \text{ has XX chromosomes} \end{array} \right.[/math]
[math]\forall x(G(x) = p) \rightarrow Mx[/math]
[math]\forall x(G(x) = v) \rightarrow Fx[/math]
[math]\forall x(Mx \veebar Fx)[/math]
[math]\forall x\forall y(Mx > Fy)[/math]
[math]\nexists f \text{ such that } f: \{x \mid Mx \} \mapsto \{x \mid Fx \}[/math]
[math]\nexists f \text{ such that } f: \{x \mid Fx \} \mapsto \{x \mid Mx \}[/math]

I'm big on various topics ranging from topology, analysis and QED all the way to dynamical systems, thermodynamics. and mathematical biology. I've still got about a year to think about what I'd like to do for my thesis project but whatever I choose I feel like I'm leaving some of my skills out and that maybe I could really pull something note worthy with all the shit I've got under my belt.
Rather than coming up with some mostly useless problem in which I can put most of what I know to good use I was thinking about writing more of an anthology of general knowledge, of some jewels I've came up with over the years for all of the subjects, dedicating just a handful of pages to their discussion or solution. This, however leads to some problems

I've got some concerns about this because of how varied the committee will end up being which would push me to really fundamentally understand every single area of study I talk about.
That being said, I don't yet know how to look for a thesis advisor, my best bet would probably be to reach out to three different people that specialize in a couple of the topics.
I don´t even know if this is possible to come up with this as a thesis project, I've heard about people with thesis that are about like 20 ways to prove a theorem but that's mainly mathematicians, I've never heard about physicists being able to do the same with their topics.

I hope the uni will take it seriously if it's any good, if I make it happen then people will for sure take notice, but it's unknown to me if people with just laugh it off as something curious or if they'll be genuinely interested in my work. How can I pull this off /sci?

Lets define [math] P [/math] a physics over a set [math] X=\{particles,waves,...\} [/math] as the the endowement of the set with the relations [math] E:X \rightarrow X \times X[/math], where [math] E [/math] is the associated energy equilibrium [math] K:X \rightarrow X \times X [/math] where [math] K [/math] is the transfer of energy relation over time, we would say that [math] x,y \in X [/math] are [math] K [/math]-related if they're exchanging energy.
>Theorem 1
[math] E [/math] is an equivalence relationship.

>Proof
Let [math] x,y,z \in X [/math]

i) [math] xEx [/math]
We know that [math] x=x \implies E(x)=E(x) [/math]
ii) [math] xEy \implies yEx [/math]
We also know that if two elements of [math] X [/math] are such that [math] E(x)=E(y) [/math] then [math] E(y)=E(x) [/math]
iii) [math] xEy [/math] and [math] yEz \implies xEz [/math]
It follows from ii) that if the assumption is true then [math] E(x)=E(z) [/math]

>Theorem
[math] K [/math] is also an equivalence relationship.

>Proof
Let [math] x,y,z \in X [/math]

i) [math] xKx [/math]
We know that [math] E(x)=E(x) [/math] this means that there exists an energy transfer of [math] x [/math] of [math] 0 [/math] with itself, so [math] x [/math] indeed [math] K [/math]-related with itself.
ii)[math] xKy \implies yKx [/math]
We know this holds since [math] K(x,y)= W \implies K(y,x)=-W [/math]
iii) [math] xKy [/math] and [math] yKz \implies xKz [/math]
We can prove this using ii)

Is this approach right or is it missing something altogether?

Lets define [math] P [/math] a physics over a set [math] X=\{particles,waves,...\} [/math] as the the endowement of the set with the relations [math] E:X \rightarrow X \times X[/math], where [math] E [/math] is the associated energy equilibrium [math] K:X \rightarrow X \times X [/math] where [math] K [/math] is the transfer of energy relation over time, we would say that [math] x,y \in X [/math] are [math] K [/math] related if they're exchanging energy.
>Theorem 1
[math] E [/math] is an equivalence relationship.

>Proof
Let [math] x,y,z \in X [/math]

i) [math] xEx [/math]
We know that [math] x=x /implies E(x)=E(x) [/math]
ii) [math] xEy /implies yEx [/math]
We also know that if two elements of [math] X [/math] are such that [math] E(x)=E(y) [/math] then [math] E(y)=E(x) [/math]
iii) [math] xEy [/math] and [math] yEz /implies xEz [/math]
It follows from ii) that if the assumption is true then [math] E(x)=E(z) [/math]

>Theorem
[math] K [/math] is also an equivalence relationship.

>Proof
Let [math] x,y,z \in X [/math]

i) [math] xKx [/math]
We know that [math] E(x)=E(x) [/math] this means that there exists an energy transfer of [math] x [/math] of [math] 0 [/math] with itself, so [math] x [/math] indeed [math] K [/math]-related with itself.
ii)[math] xKy /implies yKx [/math]
We know this holds since [math] K(x,y)= W \implies K(y,x)=-W [/math]
iii) [math] xKy [/math] and [math] yKz /implies xKz [/math]
We can prove this using ii)

Is this approach right or is it missing something altogether?

Lets define [math] P [/math] a physics over a set [math] X={particles,waves,...} [/math] endowed with the equivalence relation [math] E:X \rightarrow X \times X [/math], where [math] E [/math] being the associated energy function.
>Theorem
[math] \forall x,y \in X [/math], [math] xEy [/math] is an equivalence relationship.
>Proof
i) [math] xEx [/math]
We know that [math] x = x /Rightarrow E(x)=E(x) [/math]
ii) [math]xEy /Rightarrow yEx [/math]
We also know that if two elements of [math] E [/math] are such that [math] E(x)=E(y) [/math] then [math] E(y)=E(x) [/math]
iii) [math] xEy [/math] and [math] yEz /Rightarrow xEz [/math]
It follows from ii) that [math] E(x)=E(z) [/math]

>>12526696
>be pajeet
>get physics degree at abadubabadu uni
>get hired at a college in the US and A
>it's at a lab
>boy orders name gun from interwebs
>it arrives
>it doesn't power on
>how could this be?
>where did the energy run to?
>I am baffled
>I did not think this was possible, energy stored like that can´t possibly evaporate
>go home that night
>masterbeet while thinking of gauss' bob n vagine
>I've got an idea
>Go to the lab the next day
>Plug the device on the power supply
>If the energy is still there then it might start leaking electricity like a water fountain
>Wait patiently behind desks, taking cover
>Three hours have gone by
>The gun is okay
>The gun powers on!
>I have discovered energy can be stored in a pocket dimension and re enter as soon as power is newly applied
>I will become
famous
>I fucking love you America

>>12515626
What if I fuck his mom so I can become his new dad and ground him for talking like a cunt

>>12515261
Me

>>12501425
My professor gave a series of lectures where he solved about 20 problems per chapter, I was just an undergrad, it was my 4th semester. I never recovered from it, when I close my eyes all I see are eigen function expansions for green functions.
I remember that class vividly because I developed a smoking habit mid course. Prof was a great guy though ngl, a brilliant man who yelled shit fuck and piss when a problem wouldn´t give.

Statistically speaking, how likely is it that next year will be better than this one overall?

>>12477162
Absolutely based, I convinced my current gf that I'm both and faked it till I made it. I'm a physicist working as a financial advisor and every day I came home from work before corona I got my dick sucked dry.

So in conclusion, according to Wildberger, we're just chucking anything that can only be defined as an infinite sequence out the window now since there's no reasonable way to deal with infinity?

Recently I've become fixated on random processes, could you reccomend any books that can be understood with multivariable analysis knowledge? I wanna know how deep this rabbithole goes.

It is to my understanding that this stuff is relatively new in comparison to other fields of mathematics, most work on iterative functions was done in the 70s (even though Julia sets and fractals were discovered before the early 40s) , hell, even the formal definitions of a chaotic system and entropy are quite new. Should I start with learning basic probability theory if I havent done so by now? Will learning rigorous statistics help as well?

Is it possible for a person who hates math to love it?

A) 4x1-3x+12x2

B) x+14(x+3)

C) 14-y2

D) x+14(x-14)

I'm thinking of going the way of the theorist and it is at this point that i must choose whether I want to take even more analysis clases and learn about shit like Sobolev spaces, weak differentiation and rigorous chaos theory and topology or take some abstract algebra courses and learn whatever there is to know about groups, rings and shit like that.

Would you reccomend that I take at least a class on abstract algebra or should i just focus on the one track analysis mind?

I'm thinking of going the way of the theorist and it is at this point that i must choose whether I want to take even more analysis clases and learn about shit like Sobolev spaces, weak differentiation and rigorous chaoes theory and topology or take some abstract algebra courses and learn whatever there is to know about groups, rings and shit like that.

Would you reccomend that I take at least a class on abstract algebra or should i just focus on the one track analysis mind?

If I roll two dice once I have twice the probability of getting any number at least once, if I roll a dice twice my probability to roll the same number in a row doesn´t change.

What the fuck kind of fsick sigma algebra is this? Shouldn´t the chances become "stored" in the system otherwise, I could throw a coin an intinite amount of times and somehow end up having all heads even though I'm just as likely to get tails.

>Physics sophomore
>Takes 8 classes including real analysis, abstract algebra, intro to ODEs, thermo
>Works a 5 to 9 shift to pay for medical bills
>Gets A+ to B- grades in all of them

If I could do it, anyone can anons, believe in yourselves and keep your dicks away from electrical sockets. Anyone who tells you you have to snort adderall or suck on a camel's toe to speed through your degree while learning useful shit is wrong.

>>12235504

>>12114011
I'm not talking about what we can't see, and that doesn't even matter; we've established the conditions for life and extrapolated the number of suitable worlds (for a low reach number, I might add) and even within our own galaxy, based on what we know using models like the Drake Equation and there should most definitely be some kind of observable evidence of life, and there literally is 0, you fucking stupid moron.

>>12089993
kek'd

>Light is both a particle and a wave
>People unironically believe this