/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15124669
>Not an approximation, a real circle
[math]S=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^2~|~x^2+y^2=1\}[/math]

>>12649726
As usual, you just say stuff with an authoritative tone and blah blah blah. The curves that fit the power spectrum data are spline functions taken from ~50 other curves. It's like if you fit a spline to 49 curves taken from measuring an aquarium and then say, "YOWZA!!!!!!! This data fits the 50th curve of aquarium data too! VIOLA!!!" The power spectrum fit only means that the model isn't total garbage which it obviously can't be if it does actually fit its other conditioning data sets. It is "a big deal" that you didn't build the spline wrong, good for you on getting an A in your second undergrad semester of numerical analysis, but this result does absolutely nothing to suggest that dark matter is real. Firstly, you still haven't detected the particles and dozens of experiments have affirmatively failed to detect them. Secondly, and more with greater relevance, I challenge you to construct a spline that fits the conditioning data and then doesn't agree with the power spectrum. Due to this reason:
> It's like if you fit the spline to 49 curves instead of 50 and then say, "YOWZA!!!!!!!
my opinion is that you will not be able to construct such a function.

It's like your Numerical II prof gives you homework and says, "Fit this data with a spline," and then you do it. Then the prof plots the data and your spline, and also one more data point from the original data set which you didn't have in your HW assignment. Then you see the extra data point appear near your spline and you say, "Eureka! We've done it! We're doing gangbusters here!" I agree you have done it. You constructed a spline without fucking it up. Good job, buddy. This doesn't tell me jack shit about magic invisible particles called dark matter.

One thing I would point out is that spiders weaving webs is, in fact, commonplace.

>ignores all the 99% of definitions, all theorems, and all axioms
>says it's wrong

>>11926250
>My posting them on viXra is what going pic meme going, if you recall.
My posting them on viXra is what *got* pic meme going, if you recall.

No, you've got it all wrong. Imaginary numbers can exist but it's numbers in the neighborhood of infinity which are crackpot nonsense pseudery.

New paper as JPG:
https://ibb [doot] co/album/jNypiv

>how do we unlock tachyon power
tachyon power control master key, duh

>>11105810
I know there are people on this planet who you do not want to see made filthy and to suffer, but they will be made so, and they will do exactly that.

>>11103087
You can approach zero from either direction but without a transfinite continuation of the reals, you can only approach infinity from one direction. Since "k" is positive, the limit is positive. If it was the limit of the partial negative sums, then the limit would be minus infinity as n approaches positive infinity. Did you really not know that, or are you just fucking with me?

>>10481436
You are the one using a different definition to:
>A number is infinitely large if and only if it larger than every REAL number.

I'm taking pre-algebra in Fall semester 2020. What textbooks can I use to brush up on the nuclear thermodynamics of non-abelian Jones-Rogers-Ming theory beforehand?

>>10224122
>became homeless in aftermath
>"hey do you like homeless dudes?"
>"I washed my balls last week if you want to go to your place."

>"Hey. Are you going to pretend like you don't already know my name?"

>>10212750
>Every number in the neighborhood of infinity behaves like infinity in every function its used in
This is completely stupid, like epically retarded. In physics, functions very often take the form of
f(x) = f(x - x_0)

If both number are in the nbhd of infinity then they behave as per usual and if only one of the is then we open a whole new class of behaviors. Furthermore, it is possible that further analysis will yield novel results regarding the integrals over integrand whose values depend on numbers in the nbhd of infinity. For instance, as a hypothetical, an integral that usually diverges might not diverge when you add a number in the nbhd of infinity in some judicious fashion.

>>10212753
I haven't made any arguments. I've listed several statements. If you think a statement is false then please identify it and say why you think it's false. Also, I assume you are just an idiot that doesn't know anything about reason or rhetoric, but if you think there's an argument in my paper, please do me the favor of identifying that which you believe is an argument.

>>10212759
I didn't change the definition. All scalars less than infinity and greater than minus infinity are reals. This is the usual definition. What I did was examine a region of the real line that the other researchers failed to notice and have not previously analyzed.

>>10161791
>Scholze could understand the course material in real time
Was he doing the assigned reading before the class so that the lecture was a review for him rather than an initial presentation? I dispute the notion that there exist people so smart that they don't need to study math to become experts in math.

I was pursuing a PhD in physics a while back. Some of the international students wouldn't take notes. It wasn't that they were learning it in real time, which is how they liked it to be perceived, it was that our grad level stuff is what they learned in high school and remastered in college already before seeing it a third time in the USA PhD.

I absolutely don't believe it. Do you think someone could become a chess grand master by genius alone without playing tens of thousands of games of chess? Academic learning is just like that.

>>10107576
A real number is cut in the real number line. A Dedekind cut is some irrelevant extra complication for applications beyond the scope of my elementary application. This is like when I was saying "numbers" and the other guy was saying "number fields." Now I'm saying "a cut" which is the most general definition, and you are saying "Dedekind cut." I am using cuts, not Dedekind cuts. Nice straw man: "Let me say he's using Dedekind cuts and then argue against that instead of considering the claim he actually made about cuts."

It's not that numbers have to be number fields; it's that you missed a huge swath of numbers because you were thinking about number fields instead of numbers.

>>10074072
This paper stands alone without the references which are provided only for further reading, not for foundation.

>>9888000
Do you ever think that my anus is too high on the list of things that are really important to you?

Is language the solution to the problem of telepathy?

I like how I derived Einstein's equation with my ingenuity
>Tempus Edax Rerum
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1209.0010