/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4793005
the book has 800 pages??
I only know cohomology in a differential geometric setting and while I guess there the group is an uncomplicated one (addition of forms) I don't see where the group actions come into plan and when I try to read the wikipedia article on derived functors I see that they don't even try to give a direct definition.
I could ask if you like.

Multiply it by a/a, where a is sqrt(x+7)+4.
the x-9 goes away.

contributin' to improve all of your pics

Hintergrundmuster =
Raster[Table[i, {i, 100}, {j, 100}], {Scaled[{0, 0}],
Scaled[{1, 1}]}, {-20, 110}, ColorFunction -> "LakeColors"];

PolarPlot[Sin[7 t], {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> {Thick, Black},
Prolog -> Hintergrundmuster]

----------

Manipulate[
Plot3D[y^3 Sin[x], {x, -2, 2}, {y, -2, 2}, Mesh -> 6,
ClippingStyle -> None, ImageSize -> 220,

PlotStyle -> Hue[Farbton, Sättigung, Helligkeit]],

{{Farbton, .4}, 0, 1}, {{Sättigung, .8}, 0, 1}, {{Helligkeit, .9}, 0,
1}]

Say I want to compute 3+4.
How to program my Turing machine?

es sind btw. die equations of motions für die raumstruktur

also [X,P]=i \hbar is ja schon seit jahrzehnten abgelutscht

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_quantization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moyal_bracket

bei mir ist es

[X,P]=f(X,P)

>>3013768
where do you see a problem?

how about looking online first? (Asshole)

like like

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RandomWalk1-Dimensional.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk#One-dimensional_random_walk

define
>zero-point energy field
maybe you just mean the zero point energy of quantum theory. all (both) the theories in the standard model, electrowaek (electrons etc.) interaction and strong interaction (quarks etc.) admit a zero point energy.
>in a zero-point energy field, quantum states
quantum states are not in the field, but they should be thought of excitations of the field. they always come together.
>quantum states of matter can be simultaneously exist and not-exist
yeah the particle number operator (eigen-)value of an interaction theory (many different interaction particles) will in general not be zero.
>then can this be applicable to all matter
yes, in a way.
>And if so, then does this disprove the Law of Conservation of Matter?
yes and no. "Law of Conservation of Matter" is not part of our current models, conservation of energy is more fundamental. In a non-general-relativistic scenario, the conservation of energy is true.

captcha: humerf QED


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_number_operator

>>2918282
GR solutions which attempt to model a big bang scenario universe. Are you happy?

As a (theoretical) Physics major in my 5th year, I heard about 20 pure math lectures
(math introduction 1, 2, Analysis 1,2,3, Linear Algebra 1, 2, Differential Equations 1, Functional Analysis 1,Tensor Calculus 1,2, Lie Groups, Differential Geometry for Physics 1, 2)
and many lectures on mathematical/axiomatic physics.
and I read about 40 pure math books Books, I guess.
My Chemist friend heard calc 1, 2 and linear algebra. My heart hurts.
My Electrical engineering friend has math lectures about 2-3 semesters, then some programming related (discrete) applied math and of course lots of frequency thingys, which are really more about calculating than functional analysis. I'd say the physics mayors who go into experimental physics have to learn about this level of math.

get a picture?

>>2853005
Biochemist.
That explains why he would ink himself with a non-relativistic limit of an equation, which describes composed particles in an WW2 motivated approximation >.<

fun fact:
the black haired actor (who is also in your pic) is the writer, director, main character and music composer of the move.
It's a 8000$ production or something, lol.
Well on the other hand, the characters are terribly written/boring as fuck - but awesome effort never the less.

Watch "Triangle".
It's a similar movie (more of the slasher type however) but in contrast to Primer you can come up with a convincing timeline. The problem with primes is that you have to watch it 10 times and then it's still ambiguos.

>>2820361
If, for some reason, you (as god) feel sad that people don't believe in your existence (why would you?), then you should just interact in an obvious way with them.

>>2809534
unnötiges semikolon detected