[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.15037118 [View]
File: 45 KB, 384x288, 1554889200164.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15037118

>be le me
>browsing le sci
>notice le frogs
>copypasta doesn't even make sense and isn't funny

>> No.10976353 [View]
File: 46 KB, 384x288, 1568557516967.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10976353

Why aren't achiral molecules optically active? It seems to me that whether or not a molecule rotates polarized light would be dependent on other properties of the molecule?
t. dumb orgo student

>> No.7759202 [View]
File: 46 KB, 384x288, 1365476404570.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7759202

I've been reading a bit on sets after working my way through How to Prove It. Namely Naive Set Theory by Halmos and Bridge to Abstract Mathematics by a few people. I'm finding both books to be very easy and I'm wondering if maybe I should move onto something harder like baby rudin or Spivak (Is that harder?) any advice on that? Also set theory is pretty fun.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]