/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7171082
>california
>good

>>6299470
>thatsmathematics.com/mathgen

I live in GTA (Greater Toronto Area), and I'm in third year finishing up a physics/math double major.

what kind of jobs can I get? Do I need a masters? What should be my next steps?

I'm going to take more experimental physics in fourth and fifth year. I'm hoping it'll help.

My original plan was to get into teaching, but seeing the real world ... I fucked up

that being said, I am top of my class, keep getting invited to exclusive clubs like the golden key honour society...etc.
also unlike my class mates, I can communicate very well (interpersonal skills) >>cheap shots at this crappy post

now on paper it seems like I could excel in anything... but then the real world hit me like a ton of bricks.

what I'm limited by my family/wife - need to continue to live in lower ontario ( Canada ) and
what seems like no jobs

can you guys help me out?
any advice?

How hard would it to get a engineers job?

also no I am not going to /adv/ to ask 16 year olds and humanity majors on science careers.


thanks guys for your time

So I'm studying Real number analysis from "Understanding analysis" by stephen abbott, and I don't understand it. I don't know how to "proof" something, can some one explain or send me to a source where I can start easy and build my self up.

The book is great, its just I don't understand proofs, it seems almost pointless to me, and I need to change my view on it, since it's getting in my way of finishing this course.

I do great in my physics and calc courses (85%-100% graduating grades) but I just don't understand. it's not a matter of "pleb, just doesn't understand math"... I just have to learn it, and I feel once I get over this first step I should be just fine.


like for proving that square root of 2 is not a natural number since if you consider prime numbers +1 ... for some reason that proves that it isn't a natural number.

I understand why square root of 2 isn't a natural number, I'm having trouble proving it in a way that seems logical to me.


Thanks for all the help

In two math courses, number "real" analysis, and ordinary differential equations.

the first course we use abbott's text book ("Understanding analysis") which seems to be getting good reviews/ looks solid, what are your thoughts on it?

my actual question is what test book should I buy/ "borrow of the internet" for the ordinary differential equation course? what did you guys use, and was it good? the text from the prof, no one recommends, not even the prof.

20/?

I'm out, see ya /sci/

>OP leaving his own thread

hey /sci/, need a little help here,
pic related,
so that formula in the first row is navigation function. It's used in robotics to calculated movement vector.
papers says that I'm supposed to take gradient of that function and move in negative direction.
I dont quite get the 1.3 line though. am I supposed to multiply all those from 0 to m ?
I have more questions but let's start with this one, thanks in advance

>>5209751
>Of course this is assumes all of the energy went into the steak, so the actual figure would be a bit higher.
>the actual figure would be a bit higher
>a bit higher
>a bit
Look at this faggot.

Allow me to throw out a few of the many concepts that would relate to this problem:
>Forced convection
>Variation in atmospheric density and temperature with altitude
>Stagnation conditions
>Thermal conductivity of the meat itself (MIGHT be negligible, but probably won't be)
>Actual average drag coefficient of the meat (remember, it will change depending on the meat's orientation), including wave drag (which will also vary once you go transonic)
Even that will only get you a first approximation.

>>5144574
>raw garlic

>>5041239

If it takes him 7 pages to do this, he should an hero..

>>4855079
Insults, no argumentation
>>4855086
Ad Hominem, no argumentation

Do you have anything better than shit posting?
Do you have any evidence to prove me wrong?

The Global Warming 'debate' has been fueled by a constant lack of faith in each side's work!

Scientists on both sides have been fixing their charts and data to the point that we have NO FAITH in the science anymore! Now it has gone stagnant!

Come back when you can actually argue.

>You think; Guaranteed Career.
>You think; 100k at least.

>YFW there are 100 million others more learned than you

so, /sci/, I was taking a test yesterday and the following problem came up:

Find the vertical asymptotes of the following equation:

f(x) = (x^2 - 6x + 5)/(x^2 - 2x - 15)

I said that the answer was x = 5 and x = -3.

Apparently this was wrong, but after poring over the problem for quite a while, I'm still unable to figure out why. I'm sure I'm retarded and I'm just forgetting something basic, but I have no clue what. Any help?

>>4599742
Describe how to use this formula and where it's used
>mfw

>>4596831
no EE knows even simple kinematics and dynamics..
>It's the closest to pure physics any engineering major could be
yeah, sure... not knowing basic physics..

x^2-98x+2399.75
can anyone explain how to factor this?

>thus the universe as it stands today.

No theory should ever end like this. This is the magician's equilvalent of, "Voila!" And just like magic, causality is mearly implied not verified. Plus, this sentence may come across as offensive to people who find enjoyment in the scientific process. So, while I will not debate the merit of the scientific information contained herein, I will say that these individuals had every right to post they way they did based solely on the way you presented your "theory":

>>4297723
>>4297608
>>4297657
>>4297701
>>4297559

OP may very well be an autistic, retarded, hippie that is high. It does not mean he is wrong. However, his poor arguments, lack of defined terms, an inability to adequately clarify key points would lead most people to reasonably believe that his conclusion is dubious at best and more likely the work of a fictional creature that lives under a bridge eating billy-goats (troll). Many people may think this is elitism. I would argue they have a valid point. Science should be held to a higher standard. When dealing with science, you come with elite evidence that is written intelligently or you can GTFO.

>Is this sensible in any way or am I just high?

Oh yeah, I forgot about this.........sigh.

>>4254291

You could try "Primer", but you'll probably have to watch it at least twice and then break down and find a website to explain it to you.

Oh, and make sure you watch it with subtitles on.

And you seriously won't understand whats going on the first time through.

>According to recent estimates, for instance, if the average energy consumption of the United States was generalized to the whole population of the world, known petroleum reserves would be exhausted in 19 days

If america a pop of 300mill uses 20,000 litres off fuel, then the world under the same percentages use 600,000 litres.
If it takes 19 days to run out that means there is a reserve of 11,400,000 litres of fuel
Which means America using 20,000 litres a day will take about 570 days to exhaust it.

Right? or being to simplistic in calculations? Using a random number i know thats not the actual fuel consumption of the US.

>>3835763

>>3248929

Philosophy is not about making hypothesis and testing them in the scientific sense. There aren't claims made about the physical world which demand such testing. Philosophy is a pursuit of a meaningful life, no science can derive this from the physical world. The physical world simply IS.

>mfw I am a bisexual agnostic

>>3184245
OP here.
I didnt ask do you want this here or no , I asked how to use fractions so either help or gtfo.