/sci/ - Science & Math

No contest.

>>4393696
>Hell, maybe they ARE Tachyons.
.....
/sci/ in a nutshell.

>>4336766
>ON A GENERAL METHOD IN DYNAMICS
>By William Rowan Hamilton
>Written by a man who lived 200 years ago

>Algebra of limits on two sequences that don't converge.

Use L'Hôpital's rule.

http://blog.wolframalpha.com/2012/02/01/a-big-change-is-coming-wolframalpha-to-see-dramatic-function
ality-enhancements/

>>4302934
To OP:
>"X is said to be Y because Z. But how can we know that, when all we know is what we perceive it as?"
HOW CAN WE KNOW GUISE? Solipsism is pathetic, grow the fuck up.


To those attacking the foundations of mathematics from a less regressive standpoint:
SHUT UP EVERYONE, BADASS HERE. Let someone who actually knows mathematical logic speak.

Mathematical logic doesn't concern itself with whether it's axioms or rules of interference are "valid", "proper" or "true". Mathematics is deduction - deduction so strict that you CANNOT get a word in edgewise. The moment you say "no, that's not how I see it", I can show you exactly why you are wrong. Some logic systems can even prove that they themselves are immune to nonsense.

Sure, you can dispute whether the axiom <span class="math"> A [/spoiler] is "true" or "valid". But if we take it as true (along with rules of interference) then the conclusions <span class="math"> B [/spoiler] are INESCAPABLE. There is no subjectivity about it! A computer given <span class="math"> A [/spoiler] will always spit out <span class="math"> B [/spoiler].

tl;dr Mathematics doesn't say <span class="math">A [/spoiler]. It says <span class="math">B[/spoiler] follows from <span class="math">A[/spoiler].

>Anything apart from mathematics being mathematical rigourous.
Oh dear.