/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7572971
>less than halfway to the point....
as impulse is a thing that subjective to not just what is unseen, mid sight, and in the middle of spins, it's the very fabric of what makes fade a descriptive context, these objections to depth in the conceptual make for the bonding of trade and fade, as paradoxes, something that is found write in the middle of both of them: eachother, on the edge of them: eachother, and their conditions are nothing less than rattling a tree and having the leaves fall off

Self study until you know all of it by heart, do 5 years of highschool but through Khan Academy and the shit pages of Wikipedia, start with the proofs until you know how every one of the concepts work then learn linear algerbra and be in for a world of delight

That's how I'm doing it anyway

If you're having trouble reading it just 'question it' and it'll be simple af

>>5730470
>filename

>>5730383
This, this is really cool
It says how no matter what input your taking and reinterating, your answer is invalid on the proposition of your not taking >>5728576 p to its extent, but then by extension could >>5728576 be considered invalid by the sake of q can be 1!, which, although abscure, is the basis of how science is furthered

>>5729925
>You cannot move without mechanics, mechanics IS movement, mechanics is the base of everything, the moving self.
I'm going to counter
I'm going to counter argue you: is a machine parts, the machine is a not a machine without said parts, by the exclusion of a part is a mechanic debilitated; now, the part itself, being a mechanical, is limited to this same sentiment, as you continue along you reach zenos paradox, as such is your sentiment false in the aspect of a machine, being only its parts, is never complete, and as such, iniquitous("unjust", Cit. Thesaurus), and impossible.

>>5730106
>DeMorgan's Law
nice, well played

>>5730529
> >>5730504
So as a neuro fag how would you quantify intuition mm?