/sci/ - Science & Math

if you definition of genius leaves einstein out, then your definition is wrong
idiot
also, there have been a few female geniouses (very few, like hypatia =P )

>>3796197
>without taking notice to the word "Theory" meaning, it has YET to be proven.

>>3401965
>>3401965
Star of the Centaur.

>>3022497

5/10

>>2613966

>Most of them are looser.

Really? The ones I have met are tighter.

Pic related

0/10

Deus ex machina

Here's a reasonably general method that works for x real (or any subset of the reals) and the arguments of all the moduli continuous on whatever domain you're dealing with:
1. Consider when the inside of each modulus crosses zero,specifically at 3 and -4.
2. Split up the real line into sections between these values, specifically x<-4,-4<x<3, and x>3.
3. Work out what the function does in each of these regions, specifically
f1=-(x-3)-(x+4)=-2x-1 for x in (-∞,4] (the inside of both moduli are <0 here, so we need a minus outside the moduli to make sure the value returned for both of them is positive)
f_2=-(x-3)+(x+4)=7 for x in (-4,3) (x-3 is still <0 so needs the minus, but x+4 is >0 so it doesn't).
f_3=x-3+x+4=2x+1 for x in [3,∞) (the bits inside both moduli are >0 here, so no multiplying by -1 is needed).
Points of interest about the result:
1. It's continuous, despite how it looks- the values on the edge of each section match up.
2. It's differentiable everywhere apart from at the boundaries, where it's got two different candidates for the gradient (one from f_1 and f_2 at x=-4, and one from f_2 and f_3 at x=3). This is generally how these things come out.
3. You need to define the function where the moduli cross zero, that is your boundaries for each pair of piecewise functions fi, f(i+1) should be closed on one side of the boundary (with a sqaure bracket, which means including the value on the edge) and open on the other (with a 'standard' bracket, which means not including the value on the edge).
For example, x in (-4,3] means x is greater than -4 (not equal to) and less than or equal to 3.

Pic related; some of the guys in this thread... I'm not even sure if they're trollin' or if they just don't know what they're doing.

>>2392126

WHOA I JUST REALISED, TELL CERN QUICK.

>Could somebody explain the weak force?

The real question is: Can anyone explain the weak force?

Changing flavours of quarks. MMM.

>>2311369
>MFW athurr is telling off aether

>>2221409
>white trash faggot doesn't realize that he's white! and trash! and a faggot!

Well, I gotta leave now. I trust that the anons of this board will sage this to oblivion.