/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11643814
You have a product of stuff, and you apply the differential on that. The differential is a derivation, so you get the Leibniz rule sum thingy. Does the material not mention that?

>>9428990
What's the matter?

>>9048429
The negation of AC says that there is atleast one case in which the choice isn't ok. Finite sets are not a contradiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice#Restriction_to_finite_sets
>The statement of the axiom of choice does not specify whether the collection of nonempty sets is finite or infinite, and thus implies that every finite collection of nonempty sets has a choice function. However, that particular case is a theorem of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice (ZF); it is easily proved by mathematical induction.

>>9048422
NGB is better for some purposes, as it has proper definitions for classes and stuff.

>>9048436
You are making this hard.

>>9013071
Names are irrelevant. Names only make things easier to refer to. Why do people have names? So that you don't have to refer to "the guy you met 530 days ago, whose profession is that of a blacksmith, who has eyes cyan like the Pacific ocean on the beach of an Micronesian atoll" and so on, but you can refer to him using his name. Similarly, when you name an element in some set, you make it easier to know which element it is you are referring to, instead of having to call it "the element we chose two paragraphs ago by assuming there was an element satisfying this and that condition".

>>9002021
>and are ready to travel a lot
Why?

t not OP

>>8789480
I did. But it follows logically from the idea that a set can't have itself as its element. Don't you ever prove stuff on your own?

Nice: any space can be made sober by taking the spectrum of its locale.