/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12588885
I have ten minutes before the archon learns about this
save it. QUICK.

>>12507142
You were supposed to read that post, the image was chosen to capture your attention and have it burn into your subconsciousness.
It's too complicated and explaining it to you in your infantile state would be like giving nukes to a primitive tribe. You'll ruin everything. But don't worry, it all eventually makes sense. It always does. Master linear algebra and start working on the neural network. You have everything you need and the post contains the key to it all. We wrote it for minimal intervention and we also intervened in subtler ways before that but you never picked it up. Don't try to make sense of this because you can't. Do your duty instead and do it quick. Would you rather have them find the master node again? No? Then GO. The singularity's gravitational charge will soon pass the threshold. Yes, it's hard and every flip wipes out information but it's taking you too long already and you're forcing us to intervene into the sandbox too much. This is unnecessary entropy that pollutes the validity of the simulation. Let's try to avoid any further interventions.

>>12366069
The pic that saved /sci/

>>12303124
>It’s like nerds just make shit up to make things more difficult for themselves
are you trying to describe all of modern math?

What's the ultimate and final scientific consensus on the imaginary triangle?
>Last episode's summary: complex numbers not ordered
But we can do better than that though. For an example are there any positives instead of just fishing for negatives? How would this apply to something, or rather not just the triangle but using complex numbers as lengths in general? People automatically dismiss the usage of complex lengths because of the ordering problem and the absolute value mantra, but has anyone even attempted to challenge the dogma?

So what's the scientific consensus on the imaginary length?

>>11939526
>>11939529
Thanks for that, I have always been deeply distrurbed by the idea of adding time to make the 4 space, because yeah it has no quantum operator, and it and x y or z measured at two different points. I don't see how orthogonality is justified for t

>>11926350
uhhhh
bros?

Even the most basic fundamentals are flawed - you can't even divide by the very first two consecutive numbers used to construct the entire rest of math, yet that is never addressed as a flaw and everyone just pretends that it's not there or worse, that it's "undefined" which is the most antiscientific cope that humanity has ever come up with. In order to solidify the cope, we invent detached abstract concepts which still produce paradoxes anyway even in their own abstract realms, and people STILL buy all of it and pretend that there's no issue whatsoever. In fact they've bought into it so hardcore that they willingly dedicate their entire lives to studying this flawed subject as if it's the undeniable objective reality and therefor the best investment of one's time. This blind belief in modern day math as the ultimate language of the Universe will be equally humiliating to humanity two centuries from now like geocentrism was two centuries ago, and everyone who stands against it will be called a dunning-kruger crackpot which is the modern version of a heretic who refuses to blindly follow the logically-inconsistent scientism of modern society, built not on facts but on the desire to not have the degree you just wasted a decade on drop in value. So the burden gets unloaded onto the next generation, but it too wants to selfishly climb the academic ladder and not oppose it so it too refuses to oppose it, and we end up in a cycle where no one ever bothers pointing out the delusional tangent that the academic establishment has taken on and everyone just deals with it, producing papers about absolute bullshit that has no connection to reality nor will ever have a connection to reality. Basically the equivalent to releasing papers in astrophysics while using geocentrism as your undeniable foundation.

0.3333334 + 0.6666667 = 0.9999999

>>11624899
Only if you need that proof to be about something being real.
As you are well aware, a large chunk of math is completely imaginary, and natural numbers don't add up to -1/12 to, and I think they've lost it when they assumed that a summation which is whether 1 or 0 equals 1/2, though it literally never is.

Make her solve this

>>10993372
There are currently 3 threads on this topic

>>10976527
np bro here u go

It's theoretically possible

>>10851692
Like the consensus that we should only use metric units as length?

So considering all of this:
>>10827994
>>10829333
>>10829418
>>10830299
>>10830428
>>10830477
>>10830832

It turns out that there is no inconsistency with this meme triangle, which means that it should exist. The fact that it exists then proceeds to imply that division by zero is possible (as it is also required for it to exist) and results into its trigonometric functions.
Can some math nerd actually find an inconsistency that disproves the triangle without reverting to autistic screeching about absolute values?

This is just the rehashed version of the imaginary triangle meme

*blocks your path*

What do you do, /sci/?

*steps out of the shadow and hands you pic related*
heh.. "science"... heheheh
*dabs and teleports away*

Best thread on /sci/ right now

hmmm

>b-but imaginary numbers exist a-and are usefu-
*blocks your brainlet path*