/sci/ - Science & Math

>implying you're gonna read more than a few pages

>Hello dears
*deers

>>4956602
Damn, everyone is being a dick.
Here is a link to an introductory proof based math course.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs103x/cs103x-notes.pdf

That's the Petersen graph right there in the pic.
Go look it up, it's cool enough!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petersen_graph

>>4956628
>implying it isn't true

>>4956671
Once more offsetting comments hindering the advancement of knowledge.
http://en.bookfi.org/s/?q=mathematical+proofs&t=0
That's a bunch of books ranging from introduction to Riemannian Geometry.

Try 'proofs from THE BOOK'. It's a collection of elegant proofs of theorems in a wide range of areas (number theory, graph theory, etc.), and it's supposed to be quite elementary.

The black face of the die on the right is the primes... What is special about the ones marked in pink?

>>4956738
I was referring to OP's image, btw

http://www.proofwiki.org/

>>4956738
>>4956740

Hmm... It's almost the "good primes" versus the "bad primes," but not quite, because 23 should be white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_prime

>>4956729
>>4956632
>>4956628

Why does everyone always think of discrete maths when they're asked about proof?

>>4957344
Proofs from THE BOOK has more than just discrete math, it's got analysis too, I think. Some geometry too. There's a wiki page on it.

>Euler, Master of us all
Absolutely fantastic book. It is not a full-blown math book though, although I guess about 50% is proofs. Author describes the life of Euler too. For example, it contains a proof of even perfect number theorem, it outlines how Euler constructed the constant e and more.

I read it first time after finishing calc sequence, but I think the book is hard to appreciate at that level of sophistication.

>Implying all you faggots understand those thing you are talking about...

ok

>Implying, you man-babies really understand those "proofs" you are talking about and it's not simply a form of peacocking-compensation for virginity.

>>4958132
>A post by EK
Well, looks like /sci/ is ruined for another evening.

>>4958138
>not recognizing that it is a failed impersonator

Full retard.

>>4958139
Why? You've memorized her trip? You need a hobby.

>>4958148
I have a hobby. It's called /sci/.

>>4958157

>/sci/
>hobby

jesus christ you have no life

>>4958194

>>4958148
Or you could use something like
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/104378

bump

>>4957361
Yeah, but your examples were both discrete. It just seemed like there was an immediate "proof -> discrete maths" link. Perhaps it's because discrete maths has fewer prerequisite requirements before you get to its interesting results.

>>4959671
who are these faggots?

>>4959671

The ones I know:

Gauss
Chandrasekhar(?)
Einstein
Galileo
Unknown
Unknown
Von Neumann
Newton
Feynman
Galton/Darwin?
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Dirchlet?
Heisenberg
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown

>>4960168
>Chandrasekhar(?)
Pretty sure that's Bose. But you got way than I can.

>>4960168
Bose is second, it is Darwin in the middle, Bohr is to his right and that isn't Dirchlet at the bottom.
Well done though.

>>4960160
>who are these faggots?
Which made me think... Why isn't Alan Turing in the picture?

>>4960559
Comp sci faggot

>>4959671
>fix'd

>>4963156
paris hilton, snooki, justib bieber, kim kardashian, selena gomez, rebecca black, sasha grey, lindsey lohan, pamela anderson.
Who are the others?
Who gives a fuck about those faggots...

>>4963276
>>4963156
something tells me this is the OP bumping his thread.