/sci/ - Science & Math

What are some useful branch of math I should devote time to study fully if I want to contribute meaningful theorems to physics

>>12573791
ah i found it

>>11619612
If you've just completed two general chemistry course your knowledge is still very limited. You still need learn a lot of inorganic and organic chemistry.
If you have research course in your uni then I would take them. By this I mean you get credit for doing research within a group. This will help you with experimental technique and chemical intuition.

Lets create an equation. Bonus points if you graph it.

So this is a gambling game player 1 selects any whole real positive number. Then rolls a fair dice with sides equal to the number(ex. rolls 1 to 100). What ever number they roll player 2 rolls that many sided fair dice. This repeats back and forth until whoever hits 1 first loses.

What is this probability function for the initial number chosen?
Bonus if you make a graph.

>>10881611
>How do we take a more scientific approach to politics?
A good start would be opening up the political discourse, as there are many topics which people are unwilling to talk about because they are so divisive.
>Why do we have such a strict separation of government and science?
Because when you live in a democrapcy, politicians will use every edge they can to get re-elected, including ignoring studies which dont confirm their voters' biases.
>Why is there not a stronger linkage and why are more scientists not involved in politics?
Because not only are most scientists autistic loners, but they tend to have horrible views on issues outside of their area of expertise. A lot of people on this board even have this problem; they're experts on one subject, but super brainlet and overconfident about something unrelated. The logic in play is this: "Im really knowledgeable about this one thing, so therefore I must be knowledgeable about all things."
>When it comes to making scientific progress, often politics gets in the way when it comes to everything from funding of research organizations to maintenance
Scientists should just get government funding in exchange for peer-reviewed studies, no strings attached. Having to beg for money really hampers progress in less popular areas and promotes messing with results to get the desired outcome. (Ex. All the studies that said tobacco was non-addictive so they could receive funding from tobacco companies.) This cash flow should also go for duplicate studies and studies without much scientific value. (Many studies arent published because theyre boring or just confirming another study.)
1/2

Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be redditors will eventually be flooded by redditors who think they're in good company

>>10349014
>Now, is it absolutely, definitely, philosophically necessary that one should not be able to tell how fast he is moving without looking outside? One of the consequences of relativity was the development of a philosophy which said, “You can only define what you can measure! Since it is self-evident that one cannot measure a velocity without seeing what he is measuring it relative to, therefore it is clear that there is no meaning to absolute velocity. The physicists should have realized that they can talk only about what they can measure.” But that is the whole problem: whether or not one can define absolute velocity is the same as the problem of whether or not one can detect in an experiment, without looking outside, whether he is moving. In other words, whether or not a thing is measurable is not something to be decided a priori by thought alone, but something that can be decided only by experiment. Given the fact that the velocity of light is 186,000
mi/sec, one will find few philosophers who will calmly state that it is self-evident that if light goes 186,000 mi/sec inside a car, and the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, that the light also goes 186,000 mi/sec past an observer on the ground. That is a shocking fact to them; the very ones who claim it is obvious find, when you give them a specific fact, that it is not obvious.
Philosophers blown the fuck up.

35/?

why aren't you studying?

>>9977502

I argue that this faggot hasn't seen any math beyond basic engie tier shit, being spoonfed definitions and trivial proofs before being asked to compute something. This creates the (false) expectation that all math is motivated by the need to eventually compute tangible things.

I took a class on this in college and I have forgotten it all.
I want to do a regression analysis, but I am to stupid to even get started. If you could please help, I would be really grateful.
Basically I am trying to answer: "What is the likelihood of group A having their positions by chance?"
Total population: 326,503,694
Population of Group A: 7,282,000
Positions occupied by group A: 15/18

>>8345506
>>8345499
don't mind my autism

>>8045710
No, but I've got this one

Feynman

/sci/ im planing on double majoring engineering and physics, but theres one problem I dont suck dick is this going to be a problem? i know physics gets you mad ass with girls but am i going to have to be bisexual if i take engineering?