/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3647377

>>3086762
FUCKYES.JPG

Dammit OP now I'm pumped.

>>2380032
Oh man, thank you very much for that, that is very helpful!

Any other suggestions or areas of focus?

If you wanted to work it all out you'd use seperation of variables.

dy/dt + 2y = 0
dy/dt = -2y
multiply the dt over to the right, and divide by the y
1/y dy = -2 dt
Now integrate both sides
ln(y) = -2t + c
Raise each side to the power e
y = e^(-2t + c)
y = e^(-2t)*e^c
e^c is just another constant, so you now you have
y = ce^(-2t)
Now apply initial conditions.
3 = ce^0
c = 3
So your final answer is
y = 3e^(-2t)

>>2165429

Do it if you're a man. Which you are.

Be alpha as fuck, do the classes! (do the calculus)

>Agnostic: There is a chance that both sides could be right but considering we can't prove or disprove either I'd rather deal with other shit instead of argue.

I love grey areas.