/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12179588

Help me chose:
Major math + fill my electives with CS classes
VS
Major in CS + fill my electives with math.
I don't want to end up in academia, I might go grad school

>>12138268
How deep are you?

>>12126938
>picked his major cause of a 4chan thread
Unfathomably based, Godspeed man

>>12120238

>>11815956
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr0of2-8o7Q

>>11684607
Cutting edge? It may sound crazy, but there are some researchers at the bleeding edge who have started investigating quadruple integrals, but don't expect them to make much progress for decades, if not centuries. Most Ph.D.s find double integration too difficult right now.

Ok boys, tookys here (>>11531205). Let's get a RH thread going

>>11503506
The type of people who watch mathematics videos will not get it no matter what. Those videos are for entertainment. People capable of mathematical reasoning get their knowledge from books and papers.

>>11317321
Sit down in a study area with the textbook, a notebook, and a bunch of sharpened pencils. Work your way through the textbook, including the proofs and explanations in it.
Ignore advice that tells you to go watch meme videos in order to understand mathematics.

Study mathematics. Everything else becomes trivial.

>>10865824
There are none

What are they writing on the board?

Where might I find op image in high-res?

>>10418362
>not animeposting

>>10418499
Advisor's happy. I just feel like what I managed to do isn't a whole lot to show for six years of work.

>>9842336
jokes on you, every board that isn't an explicit weeb board is actually a crypto-weeb board

If knowledge is accumulative (at the individual level), we'd predict a mathematician's rate of contributions to their discipline to accelerate over time.
Using a naive model (i.e. being more precise if not necessarily more accurate), assume new ideas are formed by synthesis of [math]N \geq 2[/math] ideas, and individuals accumulate ideas at a roughly constant rate. Then we'd expect the number of non-novel ideas in a mathematician's mind to grow linearly i.e. O(t), the number of novel ideas to grow by [math]O(t^N) \succeq O(t)[/math], so (given the currently negligible barriers to entry towards publishing novel ideas) the model predicts an explosion of novel ideas.

So why don't we see this happening? Though any response is fine, I'm hoping for a biological explanation (and for maximal generality, I'm including -- with some trepidation -- hardware limitations of computers doing mathematics).

Hi. College math teacher here. I teach at my local community college first and second year math (calc I calc II linear algebra, discrete math, discrete math II, stats I, stats II) I teach 2-3 courses a semester (4 semesters a year) and I make a comfy 80k leaf dollars a year.

AMA

>>9637851
nothing i can say on this anonymous image board will make you see that you're being a complete fucking retard; your mind is too closed and your IQ is likely too low
all i can do now that i've realized this is make fun of you, you fucking retard

if you would actually listen to reason, then we could have a conversation
too bad you're literally too much of a drooling brainlet for that to happen

>>9613052
Mendelson's and Jänich's

Are trans woman a subset of biological men?

>>9487357
In what terms do you claim processing power is limited?
Energy? Our solar system has absurd amounts of wasted energy.
Material? Our solar system has absurd amounts of unused material.

What else is there? Limits on complexity of designs due to inability to make things parallel or problems from latency in large processors?