/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3887385
>mfw Poisson brackets and their associated symplectic structures are too mainstream for me and I rather work with non-invertible tensors on a general manifold
>mfw when dem chicks fall for me anyhow

naja, wenn du eine idee haben willst mit was sich nicht-kommutative QFT-Leute (im semi-klassischen limes) annähern und außerdem den hodge-stern lieb gewinnen willst, dann bist du eingeladen in einer woche auf ein debugging einzulassen.

Ich geh jetzt noch bissi raus, wo's noch hell is.

>>3039277
no I'm trying to suggest that if you don't even like the idea of space being an abstract set of points then you should drop the notion of space. the problem with space and vacuum is that many words/things/notions of it are described as the absence of something but you struggle with that. You ask "what" because you think of things as things (we have a Wittgensteinian problem here).
So I'm suggesting you replace space with some mathematical attributions with are defined between things whos existence you don't struggle with - because that's a possibility.

Maybe that's a mean question, but can you imagine an answer which you would like?

Anyway, you won't find your answer in physics I'm afraid.
Maybe there is an answer, but I think nobody knows it.

Every base is base 10.

Muhahahahahaha!

>>2789052

You're function g'(x) is definied piecewise. Obviously, I mean when you look at the graph you know what function g'(x) is.
I called it Dg, the derivative of g.
Now that you know the funtion you can integrate it piece by piece. g(x)=int(g'(x))+c
you find out what c is if you consider g(0)=5 (it says so in your pic.)
I.e. g(0)=int(g'(0))+c

>>2731269
so all I have to do is first introduce some some fucked up application oriented notation and then go back to natural units and an engeneer will jizz his pants?

>>2719720
It's a bijection if you use right the Cartan connection.

remember that you can always check

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Factor[25r^2%2B20r%2B4]

for results

>>2689320
the covariant derivative gives you the partial derivative and then one term per index involving chrisoffels.
On top of that you use a partial derivative on that which means some product rule.
What else did you expect than some 3 to 6 term expression?

Community, ic.
Well do you have any questions about math/physics?
I'm bored and I happen to know everything