/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8848344
Khan's videos are good, but it would take forever to cover all trig/alg/geo

I recommend the Opexstax free PDF textbooks.


Shit's pretty cash. Not the most rigorous setup, but it covers the necessary precalculus. You can also use Axler's precalculus if you want rigor. To be honest though, if the review is that necessary for you, or you're that far behind, the pacing of the list I gave earlier would probably burn you out.

The stamina required for that list is at least noteworthy. Anyone who has been in honors/ap should be able to handle it though. If you're back ground is weaker, I recommend a big introductory setup instead of that list.


A few months ago, I came on and posted I'd be making a bunch of guides for undergraduate self instruction, supplementary books list, guides for different STEM majors, etc.

I'm still about a month or two away from being done, as finals and other shit has my attention, but they'll be on there way so nu-/sci/ has something better than our shit wiki to go by.

Hang in there.

>>8807276

yes.

everyone frames their sociopolitical ideology as that which to be against is to be against science.

scientists are workers that serve to fulfill the needs of ideological defense for various groups. their job is to falsify evidence to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

the primary use of this tool is to cause people to doubt the beliefs upon which they can act powerfully, in order to domesticate them. it does not matter what you believe, it is the purpose of science to disprove it for political ends.

for whatever technology is worth, it's simple tinkers and engineers who gradually increase it's sophistication, and not by any scientific process at all, but by simple instinct and experience. the mathematics they employ are a secondary necessity; they first understand what it is they aim at they must calculate to hit.

more than anything else, that which others present to you as true, scientific, moral, justified, is exactly what they assume will have the effect of making you less a master within your own world; after all, true was never a goal - we aimed at useful delusions instead, through which to feel and act with strength.

>>8408820
Defining 1 and 2 as Neumann ordinals

1 := {{}}
2 := {{},{{}}}

For all natural numbers x, x + 1 = x u (x}

1 + 1 = {{}} u {{{}}}
1 + 1 = {{},{{}}}

Therefore 1 + 1 = 2

qed

http://m.phys.org/news/2016-09-microwaves-high-quality-graphene.html
>baking the exfoliated graphene oxide for just one second in a 1,000-watt microwave oven, like those used in households across America, can eliminate virtually all of the oxygen from graphene oxide.
Time to make ALL THE GRAPHENE!

Summoning all math & physics newbies:

I thought of an interesting problem to work on if you haven't learned it already. Let's work on it together, ruling out ideas and coming to a conclusion without cheating.

If you throw a ball up in the air at any given velocity, what will be the height of the ball the moment it begins to return to the Earth?

My lead so far is that two variables are responsible for this: the initial velocity when the ball is first released, and the gravitational acceleration constant since all objects accelerate the same in any given gravitational field regardless of mass.

I know the time it takes to reach the top should not be a variable in the equation because all initial velocities will behave the same way, so that if you throw two different weights up, they will reach a height proportionally.

So I have now g and V_i. I know that as the velocity increases, the height increases, so I can expect that in the numerator, and I know as the gravitational acceleration constant increases, the height decreases, so I can expect to see that in the numerator.

v_i / g

But now I'm stuck! I know I'm not taking into account when the velocity is equal to 0 in this expression.

Hmmmm... any thoughts? Don't spoil the fun if you know the answer already! I like to think as part of a teamwork effort. Thank you!