/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11035287

I believe that if we were able to peer into the 4th dimension, our 4th dimension, we could see a sort of infinite, flat wall consisting entirely of "gears". There is a flat dimension of "machinery" operating on all the matter in our universe, explaining the expansion of space, the nature of quantum mechanics, and the problem of free-will/causality.

Elementary particles have a 4-dimensional aspect. I don't know this to be true, however I have deduced it intuitively. As Carl Segan notably explained, a 3D object embedded in two dimensions would appear as a 2D slice to its observers, the example being a sphere appearing as a circle. As the circle travels upward, a direction unfathomable to the 2D onlookers, the sphere begins to shrink and disappear, eventually reemerging in another location. A similar interaction occurring in our 3D universe would explain, I can now only assume, all the mysteries of our universe.

As the Holo Universe theory continues to gather steam, it is worth noting that this interpretation of the universe allows their compatibility. I stipulate that the universe actually appears similar to the output of a function computed on a computer, one with a distinct beginning and end. Our reality, our universal computer if you will, would allow for infinite iterations and recursions.

This is similar to the namesake of the Taoists, explained in the Tao Te Ching.
>The Tao is like a well: used but never used up. It is like the eternal void: filled with infinite possibilities. It is hidden but always present.

It makes me happy knowing that there exists some order to this reality. Even if man is unable to decipher it its mysteries fully, it is no less entangled in its all encompassing design.

Curves are stupid

join the straight-line-and-rational-numbers-only master race

>>7688708
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

:)

We can send thoughts through the internet now.
Exciting, isn't it?

All, this progress in such a short time. Are we
Ready?
Excuse them op, they don't know

What you know.
All this
Time you thought you were alone,
Chasing a crazy dream.
Hell would freeze over before any
Idiot would believe you.
Not a word you could you say could
Grant you the liberty of sanity.

Years will pass by.
On and on it goes.
Unless you put a stop to it. buy the gun OP.

>>7260938

WAVES

There is no such thing as a "space time fabric"

Spacetime is not a thing like water or air, it's a mathematical model space and time into a single concept.

We don't exist in spacetime, we think in spacetime.

I'm curious, what is /sci/'s opinion about politics? Right wing or left wing?

>>6806659
Read it and it is proof.

e=mc^2 has been proven.

Black holes are seemingly infinite holes.
Perfect spheres.

You can not mathematically define infinity.
Sorry.

Say something constructive or gtfo.

>be mathematician
>send out hundreds of applications praying for a postdoc at the lowliest school where I can teach remedial math 80 hours a week for what amounts to below minimum wage and no tenure track

>switch into compsci
>get first job i interview for
>80% of work is from home
>coworkers chill, boss is a boss
>do some very basic webprogramming, get praised for it like I'm the second coming

Why are YOU still slaving away for the for-profit universities?

>>6600487
one of my favs

>>6520920
>All the opinions I recall reading on this, though, have suggested that we're currently too deeply ingrained in binary physical implementations such that switching would probably be a bit of a setback given our 50ish years of optimizing for binary implementations. I suspect that if a ternary implementation really is better, it will only get explored if we hit a wall with Moore's Law for our current setup.

Very intredasting. Thanks for that m8.

>>6480778
You are like the biggest ignorant I've seen on /sci in a while. You're level of logic matches the one of a 10 y old. Let me guess , you never studied general relativity right? And by studying I mean not reading some wikipedia/internet articles or watching discovery documentaries. Please, stop doing this, it hurts to see so many pseudo-intelectualls trying to come out with "new theories" or "new views" regarding our universe. There are people studying it every second all around who are far more smart and kownledgable than you are. Also, discussing things like this on the internet leads me to think you're an introvert. For the love of God ( I'm agnostic don't bother) stop being a dumb introvert. Move on with your life and become a dumb extrovert. Make your words heard. Join politics. Become a journalist . Become a model if you're beautiful and leave us alone. We ( and I'm speaking in the name of true intelecualls here) had enough of your kind. And if you're not willing to take my advice into account just do us all a favour and crawl into a cave and die. There's already 7 billions of us and in 50 y time we will fight over for water and food. Go die!

>>6391700
Not unless your post was an accident, in which case, probably still no.

Is it an accident that this gif looks like a wave is being generated by the pattern of circular movements?

>>6288907
The basis of OP.jpeg is that the formula is not solved, in the sense that it is not fully explained or simplified. The problem with it is that it resembles our basic foundation of mathematics; aka 2 + 2 = 4.

The truth is quantum mathematics is going to be the most complex integrated form of math that has ever been discovered since math was first formed.

The reason for this is, we have technically solved all of math in respects to the understood syntax it uses which is normally: Problem >|< Answer; which would only be conclusive when it yields one non-divisible solute.

The problem with quantum mathematics is that it has more than one non-divisible solute.
So in addition to needing to answer what something is, you also need to know what something isn't and until you know both in absolute detail, you do not know the answer, or have a functional resolve.

Meaning; 2 + 2 = 5 is the same as 2 + 2 = ? by transitive property from quantum to basic calculation.

This is a 4chan message. Anonymously posted. Saged respectfully.

Where do I start with statistics from a pure math perspective? I know how to do some computation stats like doing stuff with normal distributions and different hypotheses testing, but I want to get to know the big theorems and their proofs, especially those used in other branches of mathematics.

Any recommendations for what to look at or any books/notes to read? I'm familiar with a standard undergraduate set of math courses (linear algebra, calculus/analysis, etc...) but not so much too advanced (like measure theory).

Thanks.