/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9547370

>>9414407
What the fuck happened to /mg/?

Give me ONE good reason to use RPN

>>8272155
Congratulations, OP. You just created your first containment thread.

Be pleased as it becomes full of people who don't understand the first thing about [genome-wide] polygenic scores or even genes. Be thrilled as waves upon waves of /pol/esmokers misinterpret the research you post in whatever ways they see fit to help their own personal political agenda. Be amazed as non-science people make bold claims like how you can deduce someone's genetics and thus intelligence by just looking at them.

Hundreds of posts about IQ await you! Just remember, OP. This is what you wanted.

>be me a couple of hours ago
>going home after drinking a fuckload of shit at a uni party
>drunk as fuck
>pure math student
>Start drunkenly thinking about mathematics
>Think of something that had never crossed my mind
>Logical proof that composite numbers exist and that there are infinitely many
>Now it sounds stupid but it engaged me for a couple of minutes

Drunk Theorem #1: Composite numbers exist and there are infinitely many.

Assume that there are no composite numbers. In other words, no numbers that are made by multiplying primes with each other. These numbers, which are not primes, are therefore only made by combinations of each other.

Counter example: 4. Which is (2)(2). So we know that there are composite numbers.

So lets now assume that these composite numbers exist but there are only a finite number of them (maybe only 4).
That means we can list them as
4,6,.., N
With N being the largest composite number. But we can form a number by multiplying
4*6*...*N and if we replace these composite numbers with their prime factors as:
4*6 = 2*2*2*3
we have a multiplication of primes that form a new composite number that is not in the list.

So we add this new composite number to the list but then we can do the same operation infinitely many times. Therefore, there are infinitely many composite numbers.

QED

That is almost exactly how I worded that on my mind back when I was originally thinking of it. Is there are mathematics professor at Standford who'd like to rate my drunk proof skill?

Anyways, does anyone have similar stories? Maybe another drunk theorem? Maybe an EE guy thinking about circuits that don't make sense or whatever?
Just share it, I know you faggots get drunk too.

>>7659265
>Numerical circle jerking

Daily reminder that without mathematicians exploring "different geometries", also known as curved space, there would have been no revolution in physics in the last century. You would all keep doing newtonian tier physics.

>the only useful science is physics
Nice fedora my friend.