/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11145549
I got the answer, thank-you very much!~

>>9790090
Find an exact mirror copy of me and I'll believe you.

>He posts on /sci without a degree

>>9766765
>in what they perceived as "a list of all fundamental particles".
Which is the standard model; why else would he post a picture of it (unless he's also a Wikipedia-skimming retard like this >>9766756 idiot)?

>>9645561
But the fact is that the notation you were shitting on in fact reflects deep, essential properties of integration in a context more general than you know.
>by convention
So if the convention was to throw shit out the window (such as in 17th century France) it's automatically right?
I expected no more from an engineer who only knows how to crank the machinery. When some notation slightly changes (with good, deep reasons) they start freaking out.
>subset
I assume you mean that the space of Riemann integrable functions are a closed subspace of the Lebesgue integrator functions, though your attempt at wording that was extremely and laughably stupid, which isn't surprising for a brainless enginqueer.
>that way affect clarity
For whom? Certainly not anyone other than yourself.
>as evidenced by my confusion
See above. The confusion of a a completely braindead rote-memorizing engineer is excusable.
>these brainlets weren't thinking of the nuances of Lebesgue theory
Certainly you weren't either, for if that were the case then you wouldn't have complained, or used hilariously egregious language when describing precise mathematical objects. The fact that this simple contradiction arises in your attempt at basic rational thinking is very telling.
>they
Who is this "they"?
>for all other cases
How is this relevant?
>they
Again, who is this "they"?
>argue against inconsistency
I'm arguing against shitting on one of the rare instances where the physicists get their maths right. Where's the inconsistency? It seems that notation is the only thing you barely understand enough to complain about.

>>9435469
Anime will save math.