/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11085431
Just show them this shit. A 4th spacial dimensional Tesseract that can roll and casts a 3 dimensional shadow... If only we lived in the 4th dimension instead of 3rd.

Also bring up the classic 4 dimensional arrays that can be used to plot 4 variables at once. Or infinite really. It is staggeringly easy to set up multidimensional arrays in computer programming. Searching through them with an algorythm takes a galaxy brain though.

>>10558206
stare at this until you realize there is no stretching going on, just a simple rotation

if we could invent and harness a tesseract... think about it, we'd solve all the world's problems overnight!

how would we go about creating one?

>>8739707
Here OP, at least use the .gif version

>>8677518

>>8652953
Honestly OP, how did you even figure out how to use a computer to post this in the first place?

Part 1
if you want to find 60% of 784, you get it by:
answer = 0.60 x 784
where x is multiply (normally * is multiply but I figured you didn't know that)
You can change the 0.60 to represent any percentage: 5% = 0.05, 126% = 1.26, and so on.

Part 2
Same explanation as before but multiply the 200mL by 0.66 or 0.33 to get your answer.

>>8471028
We're not all like that. You just notice/pay attention to the fools.

>>8332447
Yeah this is me but I drink a little too much than what is good for me. Can't stand weed any more, it makes me feel very dumb and lazy as opposed to LSD's spontaneous nervous energy. I've done DMT once too, which was a bit heavy. Haven't done anything big since.

Nothing's really wrong with LSD as long as you aren't prone to schizophrenia or anything, and as long as you don't take any of the thoughts you have too seriously

whats it

how would one go about "opening" the 4th dimension? aka making it accessible in some way?

>>8098914
this thread again? WUT

Sage the thread because it's bait, but serious reply.

>>8084355
You realize it took both mathematicians and scientist 300 years to understand what the fuck the imaginary unit was, why it was important, and how to use it, right?

Math and science have a very positive and mutual relationship of inspiring and sharing ideas. Often the key mathematics needed to describe a physical phenomenon are laid out years before the application is found. This has happened time and time again (for instance differential geometry and relativity, or all the group theory of the standard model). Just as often physics and engineering ask interesting questions that mathematicians can use to formulate theory and generalize.

Maybe these weird summation rules will one day be found to help with our understanding of renormalization in particle physics, or perhaps with characterizing chaotic systems.

I don't know. But I'm sure as hell am not stupid enough to bad mouth counter intuitive ideas just because I don't understand them at first. Any knowledge you can accumulate, no matter how worthless it seems, is better than knowing nothing at all. Often times the deepest and most surprising connections in mathematics and science have been when someone was dicking around with stupid shit just because and got lucky.

Last thing: the study of infinities in math has been both extremely surprising and incredibly important for theoretical and practical developments (Hilbert spaces anyone?). Any concrete result about infinities is worthy of note IMHO.

>Trigger warning, retard post ahead

Heyo, okay so a really retarded question, say we got two numbers, for ex. 18 and 7. And let's say there's a task saying 18 is couple of times bigger than 7, and it asks us to set up an equation to calculate it.
Firstly, I'd set it up as, 18=x7.
Secondly, I have no fucking idea what that means.
Funny, I can set up an equation and I know that's the way it goes, it's "logical", but then again, I can't quite wrap my head around what it means.
Like, what the fuck does it even mean that 18 is a couple of times bigger than 7? Does it mean that both had to start out as 7s, and one became x times bigger? Or that 18 contains more of a certain number than 7? What's the exact relation?

pls I know I'm a retard, just help me out this once.

>traps are not tagged by prime numbers, but by powers of prime numbers.

Too easy.
Try getting out of pic related

>>7906494

>>7370069
No, your brain cannot see 4D images, this is just an interpretacion

Is there really a 4th dimension? If so, why can't we see it?

The way I see it, we use 1D, 2D and 3D to describe specific shapes of something, it's only a definition of a shape, and not a physical concept like gravity. A 4th++ dimension simply does not exist because we cannot see it.

Thoughts?

>>6887708
Linear algebra is usually the first time where people encounter higher dimensions in real math. It shows you that you can generalize a lot of things into n-dimensions. The math is the same, except the geometry has one extra dimension.

It is completely out of the realm of reality but theoretically there's nothing stopping you from calculating what happens.

Pic related is a 2-d rendition of a 3-d mapping of a 4-d hypercube. Think about why it looks like the way it does.

See also this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

>>6729905
Energetic fluctuation; movement. The environment recreates itself entirely under the bases of such.