/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5746247

>>5710320
>they couldnt

Hi, can you link me or post interesting proofs that don't require too much specific knowledge? you know, a lot of algebraic things are easy to understand without too much complex definitions and such.

Example: Euclid's proof of the infinity of prime numbers, proof of irrationality of the square root of 2, I don't know, there are many results in number theory that are nice.


If this is too babby you can hint me to something more advanced, a proof that can be understood in one day for example.
Thanks.

>>5012650
>mfw that parsed

I was able to get through my circuits course but it was pretty babby non intensive stuff. Covered Kirchoff, Norton, Thevenin, some transient curves, inductors with no calculus needed.

This course looks like I'm going to have to put in consistent hours of study and a blitzing through a shitload of different topics D:

Guess if I'll be going to real university soon this should be a breeze.

>mfw I had no idea Australians cared about or paid attention to American elections
>mfw America is collectively the dumbest nation on earth
>mfw I want to move to Australia because they're cool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB_ZlORvD4c

this is how

>>3036564

Yeah, I won battle of the bands with my stoner teacher. shit was so cash.

>>2450864

/sci/


Covariance: 25831679.68
Standard deviation of the X values: 6.0503
Standard deviation of the Y values: 207331.9971

Why can't I calculate the correlation coefficient with these numbers? I've been struggling with them for so long now.

My mean for X values are: 184.73
My mean for Y values are 530675.4706
My sum of XY is: 3610000000

My total number of data sets are 50

Please help me out sci, is it possible to a set of two variables where it is not possible to calculate the correlation coefficient for a scatter diagram?

Thank you
:(