/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11806627
I was literally a minute away from making a Seidel edition, gg.

>open algebra book
>author writes functions on the right
anybody who thinks [math](x)f[/math] is acceptable notation deserves to fall off a very tall building

>>11806670
It makes some sense though: We write from left to right, why should applying a map f to a point x not be written xf ? Why should applying a map f then a map g not be written fg ?

>>11806704
the action of the map is best represented as being "on" something. f acts on x. not x is acted on, we aren't women

>>11806704
>why should applying a map f to a point x not be written xf ?
You've literally answered yourself just in asking the question. When you talk about it, you say "applying f to x" or "f of x". Nobody says "x into f" or "x with f applied to it". It makes no sense verbally, and it also screws with your "left to right" point because now you have to read everything in your book left-to-right EXCEPT functional expressions where you have to switch to right-to-left briefly.
There's also the consideration that 99% of people except a handful of autistic group theorists write it the proper way. Using dumbass notation that clashes with what every educated person has been taught since 6th grade needs a much better reason than "why not lol"

>>11806635
lamo his wikipedia picture is so bad they should swap it with the one you posted

>>11806670
what book?

>>11806733
>we aren't women
Speak for yourself.

Nikolaj, if you're still here:
You can roll the ball on the projective plane to get a discrete equivalence class.

No idea why I didn't notice this earlier. It doesn't even contradict the isometry thing.

>>11806811
Isaacs

>>11806627
>tfw advisor needed me to explain how analytic continuation works and remind him that 1/z is not holomorphic

>>11807046
Just show him the numberphile video on -1/12

>>11807058
It's hopeless, I can't even get him to read the papers we're citing lol
He's happy to argue with me about a proof but also refuses to read it

>>11807067
remember that most proffoz are human beans too (except my undergrad diff geo proffy)

Wtf does " [a quotient ring] is universal among R-algebras R' " mean?

>>11806635
How do you pronounce Seidel?

>>11807090
They probably mean either initial or free. Old terminology uses universal/couniversal instead of initial/terminal.

>>11807114
i think you're right. ty

I am learning algebra at khanacademy before I go to precalc.
Are there any good further learning for algebra I should peruse that offers me more training before I start that?
I think I fucked math up BECAUSE I didn't understand algebra enough, which seems to be the foundation of everything math related.

>>11807187
Oh. In case it was too long:
I want to build a solid diamond foundation on algebra.
Like, solid as snake.

What do you do when you are stressed because you can't solve some problems?

>>11807208
if it's due the next day i pop some stims / drink covfefe and soldier on

otherwise i just distract myself with something else and come back to it later (hopefully)

>>11807188
You can't have a completely automatic understanding of algebra until after you move onto things that are harder and use it as a tool. The best you can hope for is "pretty good at it" and then move on to the next thing.

What would the world be like if someone gave a complete solution to navier-stokes?

>>11807377
we would become godlike arbiters of biological fate. there would immediately be a war between genetically superior ubermensch and the current state of humanity. niggers would go extinct from bioweapons selectively targeting race specific protein conformational states. not joking at all

>>11807103
Sai-del, I guess, unless it's some weird mountain kraut / mountain pasta pronunciation, but the name seems quite German.

>>11806755
>because now you have to read everything in your book left-to-right EXCEPT functional expressions
No. "f of x" is just the result of the Notation, you might as well say "x in f".
I see at least two reasons to prefer this notation:

- Take f:X -> Y, so from left to right you start with an element of X and end up with an element of y. (x)f mimics that exact behavior, you start with an element of X and end up with an element of Y, reading from left to right.

- In function composition you HAVE to read backwards right now. To understand something like f:X -> Y, g:Y -> Z with g o f (x) you need to read backwards, since to understand what happens with an x when applied to f and then what happens with an f(x) when applied to g.
This issue does not happen otherwise (x) f o g is written exactly in the order you want to read it in.

>>11807432
f:X->Y
f(x)=y

fuck you

>>11807440
While I think that is a reasonable counter point to my first point I still do not think you have actually addressed the argument made.

Yes, those things look alike, but still writing (x) f visually resembles much closer what you actually want to express, namely that an element of X is mapped by f into an element of Y.
This also mimics also Germanic grammar, where the subject of a sentence is first and then it is described what happens with it and I am pretty sure that you want x to be the object and f to be what happens with it.

>>11807455
>This also mimics also Germanic grammar, where the subject of a sentence is first and then it is described what happens with it
Not true, at least in German

>>11807046
but 1/z is holomorphic

>>11807467
>Not true, at least in German
It absolutely is.
x wird durch f auf y abgebildet.
x is mapped by f to y.

Granted my German grammar knowledge is basically zero, so I might be retarded.

>>11807476
It's been a few months since I've done anything in German, but the hard and fast rule is that the verb is second, so say you have a prepositional fragment at the start of the sentence, then the verb would come after, and then the subject would follow. Doesn't matter tho, English is the language of science, and thus it should be f of x i.e. f(x)

>>11807483
>It's been a few months since I've done anything in German, but the hard and fast rule is that the verb is second, so say you have a prepositional fragment at the start of the sentence, then the verb would come after, and then the subject would follow.
I do not know what these words mean, but the sentence I posted is grammatically correct.

>Doesn't matter tho, English is the language of science
English is a Germanic language.
And I gave you the sentence, x should be the subject, so it comes first.
This works both in English and German and I suspect in Dutch, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian too.

>>11806733
are you slow?
Okay, that was an offensive way to start a sentence, but anon is right and actually because of what you say.
It would be more convenient if results of operations on x would be denotes by xf, but it's not for historical reasons

>>11807090
something (a class of morphisms) always passes through it, I suppose

>>11807468
>1/z is holomorphic
Not at the origin.

/gmmg/

>>11806510
Thanks.

>>11806517
Yeah, it would have been quite a coincidence if you were the guy you reminded me of for some reason. Although, I could very well imagine Greg Stevenson posting in these threads.

>>11806540
I write it in my diary desu.

>>11806728
Same. I wanted to do infinity topos stuff just because omg so abstract and omg infinity.

>>11806745
If you don't already know the city where he lives, pls lurk moar.

>>11807090
That's a classic video. The soomepoeg never disappoints.

>>11807188
>Like, solid as snake.
Then you are going to need the snake lemma.

>>11807208
I post here, I watch something, I play something, I drink, I go kick a wall a few times.

>>11807495
You're not making any arguments here, you're just stating "nah I'm right lol".

>>11807495
>but it's not for historical reasons
Which I think is the best argument against the x f notation.
Even if it might be slightly more intuitive the switch over would require a huge amount of cooperation and effort with limited total gain.

Throwing over conventions usually us only worth it if the gain is obvious to anyone.

>>11807518
Nobody has answered >>11807455 and >>11807432.

>>11807490
>I do not know what these words mean, but the sentence I posted is grammatically correct.
So for instance (mind you I've never done math in German), if you were to translate By definition, x is mapped by f to y, you would get "Per Definition wird x von f auf y abgebildet" Per Definition is the first part of the sentence and so it must be followed by the verb (which is always* the second part of the sentence). Notice that this sentence is in das Perfekt.

>English is a Germanic language.
And I gave you the sentence, x should be the subject, so it comes first.
This works both in English and German and I suspect in Dutch, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian too
In English we would say f maps x to y. No idea about the others. In french (the second best language) we say "La fonction f associe x à y" or "x est associé à y par f" which translates to f maps x to y/x is associated to y via f

>>11807523
>you would get "Per Definition wird x von f auf y abgebildet"
No.
If anything "Per Definition wird x durch f auf y abgebildet".
I don't get what you are trying to say though, the sentence is perfectly valid if you drop the "per Definition" part, then you get.

"x wird durch f auf y abgebildet." Which is a perfectly valid sentence.

>Per Definition is the first part of the sentence
I have no clue what you are trying to say here. What the fuck is the point of adding the part about the "by definition". It has nothing to do with anything.
Of course the subject doesn't come first if you do some retarded construction around it but at this point it seriously feels like you are just doing retarded sophistry or you are too retarded to understand my arguments.
Yes, I am seething.

>In English we would say f maps x to y.
Do you even read my posts?
I think it is obvious that you want x to be the subject and f to be the thing which acts upon the subject.
You want to say:
x is mapped by f to y.

>In french
Don't care. Beside English and German the only language I would ever learn would be Russian.

>>11807538
If it's really "x durch f auf y", then xf=y makes a lot of sense as x is going through f in the notation!

>pointless autism about a notation everyone used for centuries
>it's a german speaker
Like pottery

>>11807455
>This also mimics also Germanic grammar, where the subject of a sentence is first and then it is described what happens with it
Yes, most western languages are SVO, but I don't think you understand the grammar you're appealing to here. In any simple phrase with an actor, a verb and an object, the actor is virtually always the subject of the sentence.
You say "she loves him", "he will drive", "I ate a grape" etc. You do not say "a grape ate I". This is Klingon grammar, not English.

>>11807538
>Do you even read my posts?
>I think it is obvious that you want x to be the subject and f to be the thing which acts upon the subject.
>You want to say:
>x is mapped by f to y.
No you don't. Some languagues actually prefer the subject undergoes the action (for example french), and some don't (like english). English is my first language retard and I've studied french for my entire life, this is some of the shit we talk about.

>I have no clue what you are trying to say here. What the fuck is the point of adding the part about the "by definition". It has nothing to do with anything.
>Of course the subject doesn't come first if you do some retarded construction around it but at this point it seriously feels like you are just doing retarded sophistry or you are too retarded to understand my arguments.
>Yes, I am seething.
This is a very standard construction.

In conclusion, fuck languages, they are all different and you can't seem to speak any of them. [math]f:X\rightarrow Y\equiv f(x)=y[/math] no matter the language, and it's the standard notation.

>>11807543
>If it's really "x durch f auf y",
In English it would be:
x is mapped by f to y.
In German it is:
x wird durch f auf y abgebildet.

You want x to be the subject and if you do that it will come first in your construction.
The alternative is:
f bildet x auf y ab.
f maps x to y.
In those sentences the subject is f, which is somewhat less intuitive.

There really is no significant difference between English and German here, which is why I pointed to the Germanic language group in general.

>>11807547
we really should have just polished them off after WWII
nobody would've even been mad

>>11807548
>the actor is virtually always the subject of the sentence.
"She is carried by him to her home". Who is the actor?

>>11807561
>>11807547

>>11807554
>No you don't.
So you don't agree that x should be the subject

>for example french
Which is why I said GERMANIC languages.

>This is a very standard construction.
But totally irrelevant.

>they are all different
I do not see the major difference for what I am trying to say between English and German.

>and it's the standard notation.
>>11807522

A friendly reminder that every post you make about languages takes you closer to a positive multiple of 24 years.

>>11807559
[math] x -f\to y[/math] SWOOSH!

>>11807575
I am wasting my life anyway so might as well be autistic about it...

>>11807575
bro... i'm 24 already... and i have an exam tomorrow...

>>11807566
I'm not sure if you're deliberately twisting your sentence into garbled autistic cancer because you want to keep pretending you're not full of shit, or if your grasp of English is legitimately so poor you think this is a correct phrase.
No English speaker would ever say "she is carried by him", they would say "he carries her". The agent is the subject, not the passive object.

You could brutalize any of my examples this way too, but if you can't tell that "a grape was eaten by me" is stilted English you are way too ESL to argue with any further.

>>11807574
I bet you like this notation you fucking invalid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hFGRV0phKg

>>11807574
>So you don't agree that x should be the subject
no, because f does the action of transforming x

>>11807576
A point most fair.

>>11807577
Then it takes you closer to 48, as I claimed.

>>11807575
>tfw turned 23 this month
it's coming for me bros...I can feel it...............

>>11807589
Komm süßer Tod, komm selge Ruh!
Im Himmel ist es besser
t is essentially death that will come to you next year.

>>11807580
>you think this is a correct phrase.
Is it wrong or is it clumsy?

>No English speaker would ever say "she is carried by him"
Again. Is it wrong or clumsy?

In German those sentences seem fine.

>>11807581
Yes. Unironically. ⊂ does NOT denote a proper subset.

>>11807585
So what should x be instead?

>>11807581
>Why yes, of course I write [math]2 \lneq 3[/math] . What gave it away?

>>11807607
>So what should x be instead?
the object being acted upon

>Again. Is it wrong or clumsy?
Clumsy. No one talks like that

>Yes. Unironically. ⊂ does NOT denote a proper subset.
Just stop

>>11807608

>>11807615
>Clumsy.
So why are you insulting me for it?
And you have not answered the question of who is the actor, which should be possible since you agree the sentence is grammatically correct.

>Just stop
Lol. Now you want to overthrow historical convention?

Also, all my other points, especially the one about function composition, remain unaddressed...

>>11807607
It is incredibly clumsy. I can't tell you whether it is formally wrong or not, I'm not a linguist, but it's wrong enough that people would look at you funny if you said it out loud, or that a schoolteacher would smack an elementary schooler for doing it on an essay.
Even if the sentence itself isn't literally illegal, any kind of argument saying that putting the agent last is remotely normal, let alone preferable (which is what you've been saying) is completely wrong.

>>11807621
who is the actor? (Which should be subject, but I digress) >>11807585 it's f

>>11807623
>putting the agent last
But the agent is not last.
x is mapped by f to y.

>>11807628
Sorry, I forgot how much you Kraut spergs enjoy nitpicking trivialities
*putting the agent in the middle after the object

>>11807627
Okay, but is "x is mapped by f to y." really so bad in English?
I think in German it works perfectly fine.

And what about my other point on function composition?

>>11807581
the sentence "A is subset of B" occurs extremely often in math, in comparison "A is a proper subset of B" is rarely needed
the whole point of using the notation "⊂ means subset" is that you can write this symbol quicker

>>11807629
>*putting the agent in the middle after the object
So x is the object and f the subject?

>>11807632
>Okay, but is "x is mapped by f to y." really so bad in English?
Yes. It is so bad. It's terrible. This has been explained to you multiple times here >>11807580 here >>11807615 and here >>11807623. I don't know why you don't seem to get it.

>>11807632
I don't care about composition. (g○f)(x)=g(f(x)) which makes sense. And it really is that bad, yes.

>>11807634
I would much rather have the synergy between subset and < than saving 0.000... seconds by not drawing a line. Just like how I prefer the synergy of f(x)=y to f:X->Y.

>>11807638
>This has been explained to you multiple times here >>11807580 # here >>11807615 # and here >>11807623 #.
No. All these were in reference to the "she got carried by him" or something like that.

>>11807656
You're either just weaseling around now or you are unironically on the spectrum.
Either way I'm not interested in playing along past here.

>>11807649
>which makes sense.
But you have to read it backwards for it to make sense. The direction is Z Y X, but it should be X Y Z.

>And it really is that bad, yes.
Fucking anglos. Smh

>>11807659
You are just making stuff up. Why are you surprised I point it out?

>>11807581
>>11807649
The only (weak) argument I know that can be made for [math]\subsetneq[/math] is that it's completely unambiguous. Nobody is going to stop you during a talk and ask you to define your symbols until you put a [math]\subset[/math] on the board.

>>11807669
>The only (weak) argument I know that can be made for ⊊⊊ is that it's completely unambiguous
The most important argument is that it's the way we always did it.
Why change what works?

>>11807669
It's a fair argument, but I'm of the mind that if we suppress it at every opportunity or ignore it then it will go away.

>>11807677
>but I'm of the mind that if we suppress it at every opportunity or ignore it then it will go away.
I think this is hopelessly optimistic, but I do agree that keeping [math]\subset[/math] for proper inclusion feels more coherent, and the inconvenience is trivial at worst, so I don't really see why not to.

[eqn]]0,1[[/eqn]

>>11807693
Now THAT is degenerate.

>>11807693
[0, 0[

Can you recommend me a good book about lattices of subgroups, Hasse diagrams, Galois connection, etc...? I took a course on group theory and Galois theory but never heard about that stuff.

x
x.f()
x.f().g()
x.f().g().h()

is a more natural and easier to write and read succession of transformations applied to x

>>11807726
Roman's field theory has some stuff about Galois connections on abstract posets in it before it does concrete Galois theory. Maybe try starting there.
Hasse diagrams are just pictures. I'm not sure how much you're really going to find to read about them.

>>11807784
>()
This seems completely unnecessary.

>>11807581
This notation, just BTW, is a Bourbakism
And they unironically also wanted < to mean ≤
As if their ugly interval notations weren't enough!

>>11807792
>And they unironically also wanted < to mean ≤
Fucking based

>repeated permutations applied left to right
>repeated permutations applied right to left

>>11807507
Stop being a degenerate alcoholic.

>>11807067
>can't even get him to read the papers we're citing
this is shockingly common nowadays
fags cite like 50 papers for no reason and they haven't even read 10 of them

>>11807843
Thank you for your concern. 4 days sober now.

>>11807726
When you find one, you will see the Zassenhaus butterfly. I wonder if anybody has written an algebra textbook with a butterfly on the cover. If not, then that's a shame.

>>11807090
For an ideal [math]I\subset R[/math], the quotient [math]R/I[/math] is universal among [math]R[/math]-algebras [math]R\to R'[/math] such that [math]I\mapsto 0[/math]. That is, there exists a unique homomorphism [math]R/I \to R'[/math] that commutes in the appropriate diagram.

>>11807495
you’re an idiot. reread your post

>>11806627
Hey lads.
Does anyone know how to prove the Grace-Heawood theorem using only the residue theorem? I'm aware that usually you define an apolar polynomial and so on and then get it from that framework, but I heard it can be done solely by the residue theorem.
If people don't know it, the theorem is:

If [math]A[/math] and [math]B[/math] represent two points in the complex plane which are given roots (real or imaginary) of the equation [math]p(z)=0[/math] of degree [math]n,[/math] with real or imaginary coefficients, then there is at least one root of the equation [math]p'(z)=0[/math] within a circle whose centre is the middle point of the line [math]AB[/math] and whose radius is [math]\tfrac12AB\cot\frac{\pi}{n}.[/math]

One clue I think seems to be that if [math]A[/math] and [math]B[/math] are two opposite vertices of a regular [math]n[/math]-gon, then its inscribed circle has a radius [math]\tfrac12AB\cot\frac{\pi}{n}.[/math] Maybe somehow we can use the residue theorem to count the difference between the poles and zeros (and since [math]p(z)[/math] is just a polynomial this is the number of zeros) and somehow show it must be positive?

But the 'somehow' is not so obvious to me. Anyone know how this works out?

>>11806627
Hey lads.
Does anyone know how to prove the Grace-Heawood theorem using only the residue theorem? I'm aware that usually you define an apolar polynomial and so on and then get it from that framework, but I heard it can be done solely by the residue theorem.
If people don't know it, the theorem is:

If [math]A[/math] and [math]B[/math] represent two points in the complex plane which are given roots (real or imaginary) of the equation [math]p(z)=0[/math] of degree [math]n,[/math] with real or imaginary coefficients, then there is at least one root of the equation [math]p'(z)=0[/math] within a circle whose centre is the middle point of the line [math]AB[/math] and whose radius is [math]\tfrac12AB\cot\frac{\pi}{n}[/math].

One clue I think seems to be that if [math]A[/math] and [math]B[/math] are two opposite vertices of a regular [math]n[/math] sided polygon, then its inscribed circle has a radius [math]\tfrac12AB\cot\frac{\pi}{n}.[/math] Maybe somehow we can use the residue theorem to count the difference between the poles and zeros (and since [math]p(z)[/math] is just a polynomial this is the number of zeros) and somehow show it must be positive?

But the 'somehow' is not so obvious to me.

>>11806627
Hey lads. Third fucking attempt at getting the latex to not fuck up after the cot term but if it doesn't work this time fuck it.
Does anyone know how to prove the Grace-Heawood theorem using only the residue theorem? I'm aware that usually you define an apolar polynomial and so on and then get it from that framework, but I heard it can be done solely by the residue theorem.
If people don't know it, the theorem is:

If [math]A[/math] and [math]B[/math] represent two points in the complex plane which are given roots (real or imaginary) of the equation [math]p(z)=0[/math] of degree [math]n,[/math] with real or imaginary coefficients, then there is at least one root of the equation [math]p'(z)=0[/math] within a circle whose centre is the middle point of the line [math]AB[/math] and whose radius is [math] \tfrac12AB\cot\frac{\pi}{n} [/math]. One clue I think seems to be that if [math]A[/math] and [math]B[/math] are two opposite vertices of a regular [math]n[/math]-gon, then its inscribed circle has a radius [math] \tfrac12AB\cot\frac{\pi}{n} [/math] Maybe somehow we can use the residue theorem to count the difference between the poles and zeros (and since [math]p(z)[/math] is just a polynomial this is the number of zeros) and somehow show it must be positive?

But the 'somehow' is not so obvious to me.

>>11806627
Are there any good introductory texts on algebraic geometry?

>>11808223
I got Hartshorne as an introduction just a few days ago. I'm a physics PhD student and I've worked through about half of Lang's Algebra. How badly am I going to get fucked up?

>>11808251
I finished that book in highschool so for you, as a physics PhD student it will probably be a breeze to read through.

>Statistics isn't mat-

>>11808306
Repeatedly posting this won't make it true.

>>11808223
Invitation to AG by Karen Smith et al is GOAT intro text, but doesn't go too deep into any single topic - however leads you up to the motivation to scheme AG so you can altogether skip classical AG. Other texts are Fulton which is boring and unmotivated, or Shafarevich, which is utterly confusing in some places. Reid's UAG is also decent and actually proves a certain result of lines on cubic surfaces which is nice. I heard AG through problem solving is good too, but focuses more analytic stuff. Hartshorne's chapter I can also be a good intro once you've completed an easier text like Smith or Reid, and has a surprising amount of detail and results.

>>11808313
Great stuff. Thanks for the in depth answer.

>>11808306
this is just a mess of substitutions and formulae with no deeper significance
Compare that to the relations between special functions in complex analysis, and then on top of that you have their links to PDEs, number theory, and all the rest.

>>11808136
For some reason I love old-timey problems like this

Reading this now

https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/Godelprogram.pdf

>>11807784

>CS kid thinks he's got it all figured out when men who actually did work on the area were the ones that established the current notation

>>11807784
this is such a stupid notation.

>>11808554
>Math majors are better at coding than CS majors
>Math majors are better at problem solving than CS majors
>Math majors are better at mathematics than CS majors
Why is this?

>>11807784
honestly, this might be the worst post I've ever seen on /mg/

My wife, Mathematics, is so cute.

>>11806670
Anyone who uses [math]p[/math] and [math]\rho[/math] in the same problem also deserves to fall off a very tall building.

>>11806627
is khan academy any good? just want to know maths enough to understand basic things like statistics and basic physics and shit like that also is mental arithmetic just practice makes perfect?

>>11808619
She has some really great curves, not gonna lie.

>>11808624
>is khan academy any good?
Yes.

stuck on this problem, if you were to answer this as a 3^something, what would that be? cant figure out how to do with the square root.

ive gotten this far: ( 3^4 * 3^6 * 3^1/3 ) / (2*3^0.5 * 3^3 * 3^12), but now im stuck. any help greatly appreciated!

sorry for shit english and shit math

>>11808620
there goes the entire field of fluid dynamics

>>11808639
why do you need a 2 on a square root?
surely this expression was written by someone totally incompetent

While I concur that one can never make it when one reaches the age of 24, one can never make it, regardless of one's age, if one doesn't have the PHENOTYPE.

>>11808640
You say that like it's a bad thing.

>>11808651
I'm ambivalent at best

>>11808554
not an argument

>>11808591
not the case

>>11808640
>and on this day, nothing of value was lost

>>11808665
>not the case
lol

>>11808665
>not the case
That's a cope.

>>11808665
it's like you're just effortlessly cringe

I wonder if the suicide rate for mathematicians is higher or lower than that of the general population...

>>11808821
higher, if you include failed mathematicians

>>11808821
Lower, if you include successful mathematicians.

>>11808826
>>11808830
What is this, reddit?

>>11808838
Always has been, newfriend.

>>11808685
Math majors are only better at coding than the part of CS who chose it because of meme reasons and struggle with calc or w/e.

t. CS kid who is actually a math chad in disguise

>>11808826
>>11808830
then higher since 99% of math majors become school teachers

>>11808639
[eqn]x^a*x^b=x^{a+b}[/eqn]
[eqn]\sqrt[2]{3} \neq 2*\sqrt{3}[/eqn]
Not only that, but [math]9^2[/math] is not [math]3^6[/math]. It's [math]9*9[/math] which is [math]3^4[/math].

>>11808993
>99% of math majors become school teachers
[citation needed]

>>11808639
It evaluates to [math]\frac{3^{\frac{25}{3}}}{3^{\frac{31}{2}}}[/math] btw.

>>11809014
[math]\alpha=\frac{25}{3}\\ \beta=\frac{31}{2} \\ \xi=\frac{3^\alpha}{3^\beta},\xi\notin\mathbb{Q}[/math]

>>11809032
Surely it's just [math]\frac{3^{\frac{50}{6}}}{3^{\frac{91}{6}}}[/math] which evaluates to [math]3^{\frac{50}{6} - \frac{91}{6}}[/math]?

>>11809051
That 91 in the numerators should be 93

any point in learning maths if I'm just a menial shelf stacker?

>>11809054
It's good for being hired at better jobs, like electrician

>>11809054
Yes.

>>11809054
no point, i think

>>11809056
My current job pays me enough money and I enjoy physical labor
>>11809057
>>11809058
hmmmmmmm

>>11809054
I was a dishwasher once

>>11809068
Weren't we all?

>>11809051
Yeah, that's correct.

>>11807868
I've seen a lot of papers/books where there are things in the bibliography that are cited 0 times in the entire text
I dunno if people just copy/paste the same bibliography across multiple pieces of work or if they figure nobody'll notice so they can slip their friends a few extra citations or what

>>11807693
absolutely disgusting
>>11808591
Significantly lower iq ceiling and floor (~.5-1 SD) for CS than mathematics
>>11808629
kill yourself

>>11809054
I stocked shelves during my bsc in math bucko. get to it.

>>11809112
Is math the highest IQ major?

>>11809149
Statistically, physics is.

I asked about this a while ago but I didn't get a good answer, let me try again because it's annoying me.

For some sets [math]A,B[/math], define their Minkowski sum as [math]A + B = \{ a + b: a \in A, b \in B \}[/math]. It is known that if both sets are closed and at least one is compact, then [math]A+B[/math] is a closed. I am interested in examples of when both sets are closed, but their sum is not.

The particular case I have is in the space [math]B(\mathcal{H})[/math] of bounded operators on some Hilbert space, and [math]A[/math] is the cone of positive operators. Is it possible to come up with a *closed* set [math]B[/math] such that [math]A+B[/math] is *not* closed?

Essentially, I'm trying to find the weakest possible assumption on [math]B[/math] such that [math]A+B[/math] is closed in this particular case, and I'm not sure whether closedness suffices.

>>11806627
much better /mg/ essentials guide attached.

>>11809195
>No anime image included
>Better

>>11809190
I should add that I'd like [math]B[math] to be closed and bounded, but not necessarily compact.

>>11809199
This.

>>11809200
[math]B[/math]

>>11809190
i answered this exact question a few threads ago

>>11809199

Can somebody who understands german look at this book
https://archive.org/details/einfhrungindiet01holzgoog/page/n17/mode/2up
and tell me what is going on there? What is it about in modern terms?

>>11809238
Wrong anime girl.

so how about some quasiconformal mappings

>>11809258
Judging from the table of contents I would call it something like complex analysis, I guess?

Although clearly not in the way people think about it today.

To get back on math (from my shit level) I just bought some used highschool textbooks which seemed nice
I hope I have the willpower to go through them, wish me strength lads

>>11809294
Best of luck, anon.

>>11809190
Choose an orthonormal basis [math](e_i)_{i \in I}[/math]. I will denote by [math]v \otimes w[/math] the unique operator [math]A \in B(\mathcal{H})[/math] given by the formula [math]Ax = \langle x, w \rangle v[/math].
Let [math]A_k = (-1 + \frac{1}{k})e_1 \otimes e_1 - e_k \otimes e_k[/math].
Then for distinct k, l, we have [math]||A_k - A_l|| \geq 1[/math], because [math]A_k e_k = -e_k[/math] and [math]A_l e_k = 0[/math]. It follows that [math]S = \{A_k : k \geq 1 \}[/math] is closed.
Now let [math]P[/math] denote the cone of positive operators.
Then [math]T = -e_1 \otimes e_1[/math] does not belong to [math]S+P[/math], but it belongs to the closure.

What is the best type of paper for general exercising, /math/?

>>11809320
Rhodia wirebound Dotpad with either a broad fountain pen or a .5 2-4B pencil.
That's how I usually do it

>>11809320
11x9

>>11809326
>>11809329
Are those blank or lined? Im not in the US so I those brands doesnt exist here.

>>11809320
Any. Important is that the pen/pencil is comfortable to use.

>>11809343
Don't know about the other guy, but the dotpads are a grid, but with dots instead of full lines.

>>11809344
This guy is wrong.
Smooth paper makes a huge difference from the basic rough junk you find on cheap pads.
Far more comfy

Why is the general form of a matrix [math]A\in SO(2,\mathbb{R})[/math] given by [math]\begin{bmatrix} cos(\phi)& -sin(\phi)\\ sin(\phi)&cos(\phi) \end{bmatrix}[/math] instead of [math]\begin{bmatrix} sin(\phi)& -cos(\phi)\\ cos(\phi)&sin(\phi) \end{bmatrix}[/math]? In both instances, [math]det(A)=1[/math], [math]A^T=A^-1[/math], and [math]AA^T=A^TA=I_2[/math].

Also, praying my TeX works.

>>11809353
m8 if normal, non-silky smooth premium paper is too rough for general calculations, then you might just be a little pussy
for proper research stuff in the stage before texing I agree, it should be good paper suitable for preserving it

>>11809343
Lined, for me.
Whenever I use blank pages, my writing always slowly curves awkwardly.

>>11809358
Cause [math]\phi=0[/math], that is the identity in [math](\mathbb{R},+)[/math], should correspond to the identity 2x2-matrix.

>>11809360
M8
I really just don't want to deal with my pencil scraping and a higher chance of lead breakage when I can have that silky smooth pencil snob experience

>>11809373
kek, welp whatever floats your goat
also pen [math]>[/math] pencil

Need help creating a quadratic equation with numbers where x=5 would be equal to 50 when plugged into this equation. (Trying to set up a ruleset, but am mathlet and have no idea how quadratics work or how to make them)

>>11809397
i'm not sure you mean
would [math]x^2 + 45[/math] satisfy you?

>>11809370
I feel dumb now.
Thanks.

>>11809402
>Where x=5 would be equal to 50
You mean [math]x^2 + 25.000...1[/math]

>>11809315
uhhh isn't your [math]T[/math] just [math]A_1[/math]?

>>11809432
you're right
it should be [math]S = \{ A_k : k \geq 2\} [/math]

>>11809428
yes I meant [math]x^2 + 25[/math]

>>11809402
Looking at this, I realize I have no idea what I thought I would be able to do with a formula you have to solve...

I'm trying to plot out the math for a cyoa so that people can 'make' their builds using this system and actually fight with them in a way that isn't just 'I win cause I'm cool and you're a poopy head' as things like this have an unfortunate tendency to devolve into.

There are 'tiers' of things you can choose, and each tier takes an exponentially longer amount of time to achieve from the last (so T1 in a subject might take a month, T2 from T1 a year, T3 a decent number of years. The end result of this is that T4 took about 120 years. But, there is a way to get up to T6 with an option, so I need it to scale from 1-6 in this exponential manner.)
So essentially I'm trying to make the numbers you add to your 'attack' stat from getting these higher tiers comparable to the scaling you get in the amount of time it takes to *reach* those tiers.

However, since it's a duel, I want rolling a dice to play an important part in this so it's not *all* down to just what stats you have, while still making it nigh impossible for someone with T1 in all combat stats to beat someone with T5 in one of their combat stats.

But balancing that, is the need for that number to be small enough that 'rolling' a 100 sided 'dice' (4chans RNG, but you get the point I hope) will still have an important impact on the over-all contest.

Does that make sense?

>>11808993
my math major homies who didn’t want to continue in math stole the cs monkeys’ jobs
don’t know any who became schoolteachers

>>11809320
I use light labs aqua drops notebooks for textbook notes n do exercises on a kokuyo campus notepad

>>11809452
i see now, maybe you want: [math]T(x) = 2x^2[/math], so you get T1=2, T2=8, T3=18, T4=32, T5=50, T6=72
also, if there are only 6 tiers of something, you can just write down whatever numbers you choose, right? no need for a formula

>>11809054
I did that after getting my master's degree. It is now an officially mathematical job and you have no excuses not to.

What's his preferred field of mathematics?

>>11809548
What did you do your master's in, anon?

>>11809550
Algebra.

>>11809550
Logic.

>>11809555
Homological algebra.

>>11809258
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_trajectory
&
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_map

>>11809546
That's perfect!
(The reason I didn't want to just write down random numbers is that I don't trust myself to set up something that actually makes sense. So turning to my most hated foe: Mathematics was the most sensible option.)

Appreciate the help friend, hope you have a good day.

Threadly reminder that Professor Green is away on a conference and that the physics department needs one more player for the football game against the chemistry department this saturday. Please please PLEASE help us, you literally just need to know how to kick a ball.

>>11809618
By football, you mean the ball you kick around with your feet or the egg you carry round with your hands?

>>11809618
Threadly reminder to work with physicists.

>>11809550
category theory

God I just wish I had a math gf (bf) to watch wildberger's algebraic calculus series together

>>11809665
Why don’t you become the gf?

>>11809665

>>11809745

women can't understand wildberger's classes

>>11809745
brits are so fucking ugly even our alcoholic tranny is probably less hideous lmao

>>11809780
>Our alcoholic tranny
?

>>11809550
Proability

>>11809054
You could think about problems while stacking shelves

>>11809905

This. Pic related.

>>11809930
It's Zhang.
t. had him at UNH as one of my professors

>>11809934

did his class filter you?

>>11809899
Now that I think about it I don't think I've ever actually met a full-blooded probabilist. Is there a stereotype for their personalities like there is for other fields of math?

>>11809953

philosophy double major

>>11809949
No, it was Calc II. He's a really cool guy, though.

>>11809665
I hope you get AIDS faggot
>>11809550
Logic, Algebra, “”””computational theory”””, “””””complexity theory””””, category theory

Basically, not math.

>>11809956
>Hating on philosophy
Biggest red flag for a smooth brain.

>>11809960

It wasn't a value claim, just a statement. Philosophy majors love paradoxes.

I have an upcoming exam in 3 months, and it will cover algebra up to early calculus 3. I already have a notion of derivatives from the early semester, but since my algebra skills are fucking bad, I decided to learn from the beginning. I've been reading some recommendations, but I'm in doubt about which book to use, I read about the Lang, Allendoerfer and Stroud Textbooks being excellent. I chose three of these books and decided to use one of them to work most of, while the rest I use for support.

1- Basic Mathematics, Serge Lang
2- Principles of Mathematics/Fundamentals of freshman mathematics, Allendoerfer
3- Engineering Mathematics, K.A Stroud

About the first and the second, I heard that it is sufficient great for building a great algebra background, and after finishing it, study calculus from a single calculus book.

And about the third, I got the physical copy of it. From what I read in the summary, it covers everything from arithmetic to multiple integrals, but being a general Mathematics book, I'm afraid to not approach algebra in a straight and rigorous way.

Has anyone used any of these books? Which one would be best for building a rigorous algebra background? I'm planning to use some of them with Professor Leonard Videos, and PatrickJMT Notes. And of course, practice a lot of questions. I will study for about 8~10 hours, I'm afraid if it will be sufficient for 3 months.

Some pics of the last exam.

>>11810016
fucking hell those partial fraction integrals look gross

>>11810016
Help anons, if I pass in this exam, I will get a partial scholarship from my university.

>>11810016
Messmath. He covers Calculus 1 - 3. It's all lecture based though.

>>11810016
>Those overly tedious integrals
Why do universities do this?

Is there any way to graph a wave based off of three points (2 peaks and 1 valley or 1 valley and 2 peaks) or at least isolate the variable "B" in the following equation:

y = Asin(Bx + C) + D

Like a parabola there should be other equations that let me isolate "B" using points on the wave instead of the other variables, like with the vertex or intercept form of a parabola equation.

If it helps I actually have access to two other points on the wave that are neither max or min just on the wave.

>>11810035

engineers obsess over them because they can't handle proofs

>>11810023
yeah, luckily I need to get only 70% of the exam, but these fucking calculus level 3 questions worth 10 points.

>>11810040
But, in the real world, these will be handled by computers and 99% of them will be done via numerical methods anyways.

>>11810039
Anon, that nigga on /sqt/ has already explained it five times over to you.
I'll give you the shittiest example in the world: if I give you a number n, and a remainder r, can you figure out what modulo class (period) I'm using?
No.
No, you can't.

>>11810033
thx and about the algebra/precalc?

>>11810053
you can look up the organic chem tutor or brian mclogan. they both do quick and to the point precalc and algebra.

>>11807792
What did they wanna use for standard < then?
>>11807581
Subset notation threw me for a bit of a loop back in HS. Teacher used one, book another, notes another

>>11809195
But the OP isn't an essentials guide

>>11810041
None of them are actually hard, but they're pajeet-tier tedious.
Every integral in exercise 14 is 100% mechanical, but some of them (for example c) are going to take an entire page of messy calculations to solve. There should be fucking one of those to make sure you can do partial fractions, not 6 obnoxiously long ones.

[math]\prod_{n=1} ^\infty \frac{4n^2}{4n^2-1}=\frac{\pi}{2}[/math]

>>11810164
kill yourself retard

Post some college algebra chart

>>11810178

>>11810289
Kek

>>11810289
>no anime girl
don't care

Good morning /mg/

>>11810295
Misha himself is the best anime girl and anything done by him already contains the obligatory 2D maiden.

>>11810302
Good morning, anon.

>>11810333
Thanks! Have a productive day or night or w/e.

>>11810338
It's midnight here, so I'll be signing off shortly.

>>11810342
You have my permission to sleep.

I'm fighting with this question, I wonder if anyone finds it interesting or has any thoughts.

Let [math]\Upsilon[/math] be a finite set such that [math]\Upsilon \subset \N [/math]
We can write an algorithm [math]F(n)[/math] that either accepts n if [math]n \in \Upsilon[/math] or rejects otherwise. An algorithm that just checks on a big list with all the numbers of [math]\Upsilon[/math] is a fair algorithm, in the sense that it solves our problem, but it is not optimal in some cases. For example, [math]\Upsilon = {2,4,6,8,10}[/math] could be just checked by a simpler algorithm, that checks if the number is divisible by two and if it is less than 11. Although I did not prove it, we can agree that this is a good candidate for the optimal algorithm for checking such set, so we shall call it an optimal algorithm, because it is simpler than the naïve check. My question is, do all the sets [math]\Upsilon[/math] have an optimal algorithm?

>>11810418
>write an algorithm
>>>/g/
>>>/r/eddit
>>>/trash/
>>>/out/

faggot

>>11810418
>do all the sets ΥΥ have an optimal algorithm?
Obviously.
Proof:
For every set there is at least one algorithm, we can check every algorithm which produces the result and that is less steps than the trivial one, there is a finite amount of them, thus a minimum exists.

>>11810425
>r every set there is at least one algorithm, we can check every algorithm which produces the result
Yes.
>and that is less steps than the trivial one,
But you just assumed that, this is the kernel of my question, how do we prove that?


>>11810421
Mathematics is not just geometry, my dear engineer.

>>11810433
You're right, it's also category theory, my dear code-monkey

>>11810433
>But you just assumed that, this is the kernel of my question, how do we prove that?
Prove what. There is nothing to prove. Even if there is no better one than the trivial one, there still is a minimum.

>>11810425
This is retarded, your algorithm can have a different number of evaluation steps for each integer, and the order you seem to imply on ℕ 2 is not total.

>>11810443
>, and the order you seem to imply on ℕ 2 is not total.
You can just choose whatever order you want.
E.g. sum of steps, mean over steps.
But of course, your minimum should be in R.

>>11810451
>You can just choose whatever order you want.
I am afraid that >11810418 requires the pointwise order, otherwise this is side-stepping the problem.

>>11810456
There's not going to be one single algorithm which is fastest for every integer simultaneously. Pick any integer n, and then hardcode the answer for n into the algorithm. Now f(n) finishes after 1 comparison.

>>11808136
Maybe you could try something with the polynomial [math](z-1)^n-(z+1)^n[/math] which has zeros [math]z=-i\cot\frac{\pi}{n}[/math]

>>11810729
I mean [math] z=-i\cot\frac{k\pi}{n} [/math] for [math]k=0,1,\dots,n-1[/math]

>>11810425
>we can check every algorithm which produces the result and that is less steps than the trivial one, there is a finite amount of them, thus a minimum exists.
I'm not certain if I interpret the sentence correct, but to rule one reading out let me point out that every computable function [math] \phi [/math] with a program implementation [math] P [/math] , there's infinitely many definite programs [math] P', P'',\dots [/math] that do the job. (E.g., if [math] P(n) [/math] is the result that [math] P [/math] gives, then [math] P'(n) [/math] defined as factoring [math] 14 [/math] and then computing [math] P [/math] also implements [math] \phi [/math] . And factoring [math] 14 [/math] twice and trice gives new programs that also correspond to the same computable function.)

>>11810418
>Let [math]Υ[/math] be a finite set such that [math]Υ\subset {\mathbb N} [/math]. We can write an algorithm F(n) that either accepts n if n∈Υ or rejects otherwise.
Tiresome remark, but possible worth it: This language, which is class classical math language in a computability theory context, is a bit sloppy.

Take at face value, here the counter example:
Let [math] Y = \{4,6,9\} [/math] if Goldbach's conjecture is true and [math] Y = \{0, 2, 5, 6, 11\} [/math] if Goldbach's conjecture is false.
Questions such as [math] 2\in Y [/math] are extremely hard to answer and could in fact be undecidable.
In any case, making the assumption that [math] Y = \{4,6,9\} [/math] or [math] Y = \{0, 2, 5, 6, 11\} [/math], we have that [math]Υ\subset {\mathbb N} [/math], but there may be no slow algorithm that decides whether [math] 2 [/math] should be accepted.

But okay, say your friend writes down [math] \{0, 2, 5, 6, 11\} [/math] on a paper and asks you for fastest program.
I think you want to look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

Possibly relevant also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem

Just got offered a job related to formal verification and model checking, is there a future in this?

>>11810759
can you describe what this job is about?

>>11808136
I think the analysis problems tend to be less popular here than the algebra ones for some reason.

>>11808136
>One clue I think seems to be that if AA and BB are two opposite vertices of a regular nn-gon
How does this idea of "opposite" vertices work when n is odd?

permutation on {1,2,3,4,5}
1 2 3 4 5
1 3 2 4 5
is a bicycle

>>11810889
wat

>>11810898
That permutation is just (23).

>>11810903
ok but what does that have to do with bicycles

>>11810906
(23) is a bicycle

>>11810906
Learn some algebra.

>>11810887
One point is on the axis of symmetry, the others can be paired with opposing points. Just remember your high school geometry. From each point you can draw a line going through the centre of a circle and all that, and get the excircle and incircles and everything.

>>11810935
>the others can be paired with opposing points.
Oh. Okay, opposite means "reflected through the 1 vertex between them". I was interpreting it as "opposite end of the diameter of the circle".

>>11810421
This.

Are there group homomorphisms [math]\pi:G\rightarrow H[/math] such that [math]|ker(\pi)|=\infty[/math]?

>>11811183
[eqn]\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}[/eqn]

>>11811183
Natural projection from G to G/G where G is an infinite group.

>>11808136
I think I figured this out from your clue. I'm not a mathematician or a maths student so I suck at rigor, but I think I understand this intuitively, so here's my sketch of a """proof"""

What you do is derive Macdonald's theorem from the residue theorem:

If [math]f(z)[/math] is holomorphic on the interior of a contour [math]C[/math], defined by [math]|f(z)|=R[/math] for some constant [math]R[/math] then the function has exactly one more zero in that region than its derivative.

From that theorem you can show that if [math]f(z)[/math] is a real polynomial with real and distinct zeros, then between two consecutive zeros there is exactly one root of its derivative.

Finally, if you generalise things a bit, you can show that if there are two zeros of an [math]n[/math]-th degree polynomial in the complex plane, except now this polynomial doesn't have to have real coefficients, then now the root between the two doesn't have to be on the line between them, but it will be bounded by the incircle of the regular [math]n[/math]-gon because no matter where you rotated or reflected the axis of the two roots are, there has to be a line on which the derivative has a zero.

Finally, as you've pointed out, the radius of this circle is just [math]\frac12AB\cot\frac{\pi}{n}[/math]

[math]\int_0 ^1 x^xdx = \int_0 ^1 e^{log(x^x)}dx = \int \sum_{n=0} ^ \infty \frac {x^n log^n(x)}{n!} dx \approx .7834[/math]

>>11811261
what's the elongated s?

what does it do? i see it a lot.

>>11807784

Some category theorists already write x ; f ; g ; h for that.

[math](a+b)^2=a^2+b^2[/math]

>>11811556
>category theorists
not science or math.

>>11811560
wrong. it's a^2 + 2ab + b^2


idiot. go study pre-algebra then you can come back here with the big boys.

>>11811570
>not working in [math]\mathbb{C}[a,b]/(ab)[/math]
absolute plebmaster

>>11811560
[math](\alpha+\beta)^2=(\alpha+\beta)(\alpha+\beta)=\alpha^2+\beta^2+\beta\alpha+\alpha\beta=\alpha^2+2\alpha\beta+\beta^2[/math]

>>11811562
>Category theory is the gender studies of mat-

>>11811580
who said [math]\alpha[/math] an [math]\beta[/math] have to commute, god I hate mathematoids

product topology vs. box topology - which is best and why?

>>11811597
>topology

>>11811592
[math]\forall z,w\in\mathbb{C}[/math] it follows that [math]z+w=w+z[/math].

>>11811570
>wrong. it's a^2 + 2ab + b^2
Idiot. Look up freshman's dream.

go study pre-algebraic-topology then you can come back here with the big boys.

>>11811608
>topology
Geometry,

>>11811608
I'm more of a sophomore's dream man, myself.

>>11811597
I think I read somewhere that Alexandrov told Tikhonov that his dumb product topology will never be used. Oopsie.

>>11811560
True when you are doing the almost smart thing and using [math]\mathbb{F}_2[/math].

>>11810741
Hmmm, nice, the motivation behind this qestion is basically can we "compress" any finite set of positive integers (maybe excluding zero f it turns out to be a hassle) with a simple algorithm? I don't really care for how fast the algorithm is, but how small it can be. As an example, imagine we have a big set, let's say with a trillion numbers in it. Can we always define a small algorithm for checking it, or there will be at least one set where the algorithm will have to somehow encode all the members rather than test a common property.


Thanks for the links, I'll read them carefully.

>bombed diff geo midterm
It was going so well bros...

>>11811597
box topology is a source of counterexamples in your general topology class, literally nothing else

>>11811666
Based digits.
What questions tripped you up, anon?

>>11810741
There's no reason to assume that Goldbach's conjecture is false.

>>11811652
If you don't actually care for runtime but "enumerate all elements of Y and at each new element compare against your query number" is fair game, then the answer is, I guess, no.

>Hmmm, nice, the motivation behind this qestion is basically can we "compress" any finite set of positive integers (maybe excluding zero f it turns out to be a hassle) with a simple algorithm?
Those are called Per Martin Löf random, pic related - the same Martin Löf of dependent type theory with equality that's so hot right now, and also the same Martin Löf who worked on finding out which birds have a pussy.

>>11811681
Nice!

>>11811672
Nearly all of them (even the simple computation one). It didn't help that I slept for at most 4 hours. I realized shortly after I finished that the one complete answer I wrote is wrong.

I have no desire to give up, but my mark will suffer for this. Really wish I studied vector fields more.

>>11811710
>I have no desire to give up
That's the spirit
>but my mark will suffer for this. Really wish I studied vector fields more.
You learned your lesson. Never make this mistake again.

>>11811710
Always make sure you get, at least, 7 hours of sleep prior to examinations. Staying up all night and cramming isn't going to work with the real math classes.

>>11811597
While the product topology may have many applications, the box topology has all the cuteness points, so I'm gonna have to choose that one.

>>11811720
>>11811728
thank you, based anime anon. I will do my best from now on :)

>>11811710
I wrote my sophomore statistics exam after being awake for about 40 hours and writing 2 other exams the previous day. Somehow managed an acceptable grade on it but I was so blacked out I couldn't even remember if I wrote the next day. I had to check with somebody to make sure I was at the exam.

>>11811736
Live up to your promise or die trying!

Are stochastic processes honest or dishonest math?

>>11811743
>stochastic
dishonest

>>11811736
Is this real?

>>11811748
Nothing stochastic in hardening an anon with fire.

>>11807187
Chris McMullen's
Algebra Essentials Practice Workbook with Answers

How does one get a math GF?

>>11811765
install gentoo

>>11811765
You become the gf and join my harem.

These threads are moving way too fast these days, stop shitposting so much friends

>>11811798
No we need /mg/ on the front page all the time.

>>11811765
i thought shes a physics dropout

>>11811827
she is, I knew her irl
I heard these guys she hung out with unironically discussing reddit, I just couldn't watch her youtube videos after that

>>11811832
As opposed to ironically discussing reddit?

>>11811832
>guys she hung out with unironically discussing redd
That's like 95% of the "nerdy" college guys.

>>11811832
i mean if she's trying to do the whole multi-social media thing then fair enough, gotta get them jugularwhiskered followers somehow

>>11811838
yes

>Blonde hair, blue eyed math major
Tibees is /ourgirl/.

>>11811850
How is that special? Everyone here has blonde hair and blue eyes, right?

>>11811852
I have brown hair and hazel/green eyes. Is my /mg/ membership stripped?

>>11811852
Actually, I'm black.

>>11811860
Hello, based department?

>>11811844
Even if it were popular to shit yourself in public I'd still look down on people for doing so

>>11811859
We thank you for your interest in this position, but sadly our choice this time was not you. Better luck next time.

>>11811860
Nice!

>>11811852
Not everyone lives in a Slavic shithole.
And by Slavic shithole I mean the beautiful cities that are not the disgusting piles of shit you find here.

Also, I have red hair, but I thankfully am, verifiably a third generation Holocaust perpetrator, so hopefully I will not get booted out.

>>11811860
stats major?

[math]\tau:A\rightarrow B[/math]

>>11811880
Quite procto-scatological a post, this one.

Is /mg/ trans friendly?

>>11811902
Yeah welcome aboard. Just put your head in this noose.

How do I solve n < lg(n^8)? lg is log on the basis 2.
Thanks frens.

>>11811794
This. I did it and I've never been happier!

>>11811972
For n>=1 that is.

>>11811827
Phd dropout.
>>11811832
>autism
>>11811781
based

>>11811996
You don't solve it for n=1, my friend.

>>11812095
Shouldn't the solution be a range? If I plot it I can see it it is approximately (1.1, +infinity).

>>11812118
What is any logarithm of 1? Compare that with 1.

>>11812127
>What is any logarithm of 1?
0
>Compare that with 1.
wat?

>>11812133
1 < 0? Don't use n=1.

>>11812140
i think i'm being meme'd™

>>11812142
Please do explain how 1 < lg(1).

>>11811895
Quite confusing post, this one.

>>11812151
It is not. How does this information give me the range (1.1, +infinity)?

>>11812168
I told you you don't have n=1, learn to read.

>>11812170
Are you implying 1.1 is the largest number larger than 1?
Are you by any chance Indian?

>>11812174
What? Read >>11811996 and stop breathing. You should just give up.

>>11812189
What is the range of numbers n, with n>=1, that satisfies n < log2 (n^8) ?

>the absolute state of /mg/

>>11811794
Do not listen to this anon.

Join my harem instead, it's much more comfy.

>>11812285
>Join my harem instead, it's much more comfy.
Cute picture. I'm sold.
I DM'ed you my address, please start sending my HRT.

>>11806627
hi /mg/
What are the best books about statistics and probability theory

>>11812164
It had shit & hole in it, so it is both a post of scatology and proctology.

>>11812302
Maybe we should all go to sleep?

>>11812296
DeGroot

>>11812317
Yeah, probably. I've been awake for 23 hours now and it's starting to show. Waking up at midnightish hours leads to laughing at pee & poo.

>>11812333
Pee pee poo poo haha

>>11812343
Literally me.

Is the interior of the cone of positive operators on a Hilbert space just the cone of strictly positive operators? I don't see an obvious proof that the sets are exactly the same.

>>11812285
I'm willing to switch given the cute picture <>w<>

>>11811720
>>11811728
It's a hard to realize the nice animeposters are nazis

New thread >>11812784

>>11812787
[math]\emptyset\omega\emptyset[/math]