/sci/ - Science & Math

> the image you see is the plot of all algebraic numbers in the complex plane, coloured by their degree
> this proves reality transcends our view of shapes, forms and general consciousness
Everything exists. NPCs are sadly unable to comprehend the meaning of
> everything
since anything not confined in their perception, which is by definiton only an infinitesimal part of everything, is non-existent to them, they deny anything nonmaterialistic. Same for scientists, although they explicitly admit their theories only capture our world. Existence is not tied to matter, ideas are not tied to matter. 'Everything' goes beyond yourself and most importantly beyond your ego. 'Everything' goes beyond god and beyond the gods of those gods.
> but I can't see it
> but I can't hear it
> but I can't...
the amount of things you can't perceive are infinite, we know nothing.

What's the best way to represent the algebraic numbers as a data type? I would ask /g/ but I don't want a pozzed webdev who doesn't know what it is to cut and paste it from stack exchange.

Nothing doesn't exist, therefore, everything exists. That means that I also exist. But what am I? And why can I ponder about my own existence?

Alright /sci/
Ideally, which number base system should we be using?

What is the most difficult algebraic number to find?

[math]
x^{2} - x - 1 = 0 \\
This\,is\,just\,the\,equation\,for\,the\,golden\,ratio\,for\,example. \\
x = 1.61803398875...
[/math]

Is it an accurate measure of the difficulty or sophistication of a research (not survey) publication in mathematics by averaging the dates of publication of its references, perhaps with some normalization to get a nice scale? It seems that the fresher the research one is pulling from, the more groundbreaking and modern their work will be. I have personally noticed that the harder topics I work on have a lot more recent publications, and when I do lower-level work it only has to reference older papers which are sometimes simpler and more "tried and true."

It seems like it could be at least a fun metric for this board to adopt.

I keep them math-related. Everything else seems meaningless. This is my current one.

It's hard but yes, you can actually become better at math. If you want to actually become better instead of just passing your test like everybody else then you need to learn how to read your textbooks, which is a skill most students today lack. Your textbooks will explain things in more detail than the teacher ever could. When you're first reading them you probably won't understand a lot of what you're reading, this will be because like most students today you don't know as much as you should to be at whatever level you're at. You need to do two things: 1) keep on trying to understand what you don't get. Seriously I've spent hours on sentences, and it was worth it. 2) Find people who know this stuff and are willing to talk about it. Your teacher is probably your first bet since most math teachers love to discuss math. If there's a free tutoring center at you're school that's another great place, you should spend a lot of time there. Last if you can find people in your class who are interested in starting math study sessions, then you guys can get together and work the problems together and ask each other questions to enhance all of your knowledge.

It might seem strange to think that immersing yourself in math would help to reverse your repulsion but it really will. The reason you are repulsed isn't that you don't like math, almost no one actually doesn't like math, what you don't like is being frustrated by math and feeling powerless. The more deeply you understand the subject, the less powerless you'll feel, the more you realize everything in math makes sense.

Good luck.

>>6387235
What sort of number theory? In my experience, number theory initially seemed like a bunch of unrelated theorems and ad-hoc proofs with no organizing principle, but then I learned algebraic number theory and it made a lot more sense. It's hard to see the big picture in number theory until you view it in terms of some broader (algebraic/analytic/geometric) framework.

Hear me out:
I've noticed that during sleep I might wake up hearing the cat walk through the room, at least when everything else is quite, but when I run the television I won't wake up even when a plane flies over the house. Now, I've read bad sleep takes away a few years of your life, but having said that, is running your own backnoise actually a somewhat healthy countermeasure against stress introduced by noise? Saying, do people who sleep in front of the television live longer than those who don't when it comes down to living in an stressful environment?

>>6070260
The right notion in this context is "prime ideal of the ring of integers of a number field". The key fact about prime numbers is that every nonzero integer has (up to sign) a unique factorization into prime numbers.

The ring of integers of a number field generalizes this: although unique factorization of *numbers* doesn't always hold, there is still unique factorization of *ideals*, a ring-theoretic generalization of numbers.

This is a starting point for algebraic number theory. That requires a fair amount of algebraic background to learn, though, so you'll probably need to learn more ring theory in particular first.

How to pronounce Brahmasphutasiddhanta? Please, I need this so I can be a mathematician.

Why is the difference between numbers that can be represented as a fraction* of whole numbers (where the fraction is a comparison between two whole numbers or maybe just multiple, I don't know which) and numbers that cannot, an important one?

It feels like an arbitrary distinction to me, and it obviously is, but I mean I'm not even sure why it matters. Is it just that we don't know what most of the algebraic, non-rational numbers are?

>>5566442
This
I had a Pchem professor who wrote v, u, nu, and gamma all the same. I wasn't a chem major, and it was a small class, so he developed a special hatred for my almost autistic nagging about his handwriting.

I hate the term "imaginary" and it being introduced long before anyone should be using complex numbers, because retards think it implies a magical make-believe math that is all bullshit.
Although, I love shitting out an explanation of quaternions (involving liberal use of "higher dimension", "pure imaginary" and whatnot) to the pseudo-intellectual slut.
>My recent prey have been the blogger-types who like to immediately google to validate my bullshit
>they see the same terminology, don't look any further
>I'm a "genius"
>my (often drunken/inaccurate) rambling of math scores some of the best pussy

The first few algebraic numbers (dense but countable)

/sci/ please give me some academic advice.

I'm a junior majoring in math and physics, doing research in this computational condensed matter theory group. After a summer of this I found that I really don't like physics very much any more and that I'd rather go to grad school for math instead.

Unfortunately there aren't any math professors doing research with undergrads at my school right now. However if I keep working with the physics group I can probably get 2-3 first author publications over the next two years.

Will the physics publications help my resume for math grad school in any way? If not what should I do?