/sci/ - Science & Math

> we haven't found an inconsistency yet therefore it's consistent and sound

>>10450111

>feminine humility to spare male egos

Sounds like your mom had a good father and has healthy relationships with men. But honestly it would be very funny for a woman to be the one to BTFO of a very reasonable conjecture, making all its nice consequences false, with something so ugly and stubborn as a single fact, a single counterexample.

I like to imagine some nice number in the quadrillions or quintillions, something that humans haven't checked yet, but which is quite tractable and amenable to human checking once presented. Something that a sufficiently trained human being (a PhD or grad student, even a very bright/educated undergrad) could plug into the appropriate formula(e), chug for a few pages and then go "oh god-damn it this thing is true therefore RH is false. FUCK."

The funny thing is that she wouldn't necessarily even get a big prize. It's my understanding (am I wrong?) that the money-prize is only to be awarded in the event that RH is proven TRUE. Depending on mummy's age, she might or might not qualify for a Fields medal, but the result would be so "unpleasant" that I could very well see the IMU people not wanting to give its initial discoverer (math is discovered, not invented) such high recognition. She'd get some official prize of some kind I'm sure (in our hypothetical, we both know your mummy didn't disprove RH), but nothing huge. She might also have that in mind.

Is Evan Chen's napkin worth reading?
http://web.evanchen.cc/napkin.html

>>10363557
If you say that x^2 equals x+x+...+x (x times), then you implicitly say that x^2 as a function, in this particular context, has as its domain the positive integers. However you can't take a derivative of a function at a point that is not an accumulation point. Since the integers does not have any accumulation points, you can't take the derivative of x^2 meaningfully in this context. Thus your second step is erroneous.

>>10334871
[math]\color{green}{\text{you should be able to solve this}}[/math]

>>10162608
Shitpost

24/?

>>8693946
And then there are the ascended people

/sci/ humor aka ylyl sci edition

What are some ill-defined terms in math that everybody refuses to define?

"smooth" is one that comes to mind

Am I the only one who finds whatever a physicist or mathematician has to say about philosophy more interesting than what philosophers say?

I often see people getting butthurt and saying things like "Feynman wasn't a philosopher", "Einstein wasn't a sociologist", etc., as if there was some sort of equivalence between all the fields of knowledge.

There's no equivalence, some fields are superior, and for the people well-versed in those superior fields, looking down at inferior fields and quickly understanding the concepts is no big deal.

It should be a requirement that you are first a physicist or mathematician before you enter into philosophy, psychology or sociology. Maybe then those fields wouldn't have so much garbage.

>>8260132
>Even though its true at least until 2^60 or so why suspect that some larger number would be uncollatzable to 1?

>>7729535

How does a poor college student find sources to learn mathematics?

It seems there used to be plenty of places to find books/pdfs online to read, but now none of them are around/consistently download. How does /sci/ manage?

>>6411604

>>6219790
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophomore%27s_dream

hello /sci/, i need some help. i want to find the solution of the differential equation
<div class="math"> t x''(t) + (1-2t)x'(t) - 2x(t) = 0 </div>
with <span class="math"> x(0)=1 [/spoiler] and <span class="math"> x'(0)=2 [/spoiler]
via Laplace transformation.

my problem is the <span class="math">tx''(t) [/spoiler] part since
<div class="math"> L[tx''](p) = - \frac{d}{dp) L[x''](p) =- \frac{d}{dp} ( p^2 - p x(0) - x'(0) </div> brings the derivative of the laplace transformed into my equation, i get:
<div class="math"> (2-p^2) L[x]'(p) - pL[x] = 0 </div>
what do?

Why does this happen?