/sci/ - Science & Math

What happened to /sci/ as we knew it in the good old days?
Yes, the racism and ignorance of scientific topics are thriving.
But where are the hilariously ill-informed anti-mathematical
contributions from our cherished heroes Norman Wildberger,
John Gabriel, and yes, Jon Tooker, who is still with us, though only
with tedious repetitions.
Come on guys, you have to pep up your posts for us math nerds.

how do you prove that the set of real numbers is isomorphic to the set of points of a straight line?

>>10981315
well they were right

>>10412198
>pay 2000 burger coins to have it published online
kek i cant believe professors actually let this system work like this

>write article after months or years of work
>pay to submit
>if published, get no money
>later review other articles for free

like, what a bunch of cucks

>>9855702
So what's your point? You posted some completely unrelated gibberish besides the numbers that I used.
Prove to me by experiment with real tangible objects not by trying to find loopholes in maths.
that's the entire point of this thread.

>The material also put new demands on teachers, many of whom were required to teach material they did not fully understand. Parents were concerned that they did not understand what their children were learning and could not help them with their studies. In an effort to learn the material, many parents attended their children's classes. In the end, it was concluded that the experiment was not working, and New Math fell out of favor before the end of the decade, though it continued to be taught for years thereafter in some school districts.

>nobody knows this stuff, so obviously we shouldn't teach it

>>9787361

How do I fit this model in R.
[math] p(y_i | \lambda_i ) = \lambda_i e^{-\lambda_i y_i}, y_i > 0[/math] for
[math] \log \lambda_i = - \beta_0 - \beta_1 x_i [/math]
I'm pretty sure I need to use glm to find b0 and b1, but I don't even get how the model works when its given as a pdf like that

>>8752442

>>8729917

>>8728526
>irrational numbers
>implying

>>8711587
This one?

>>8693587
this guy?
don't think he'd be so happy bout R

>>8660819

Numbers do exist though. The square of 2 is used, in the A series of paper to give an example. Therefore, it exists. I mean, you can argue whether they exist or not in a metaphysical sense, but the argument that must come first is "what does it mean to exist?", well clearly the square root of 2 does exist, and it makes the argument for its existance everytime you scale the A-series.

>>8649890
stooop