/sci/ - Science & Math

Let me just take that little "dt" and put it on the other side.

Now we have a nice little cozy differntial equation.

fun fact: it works

>>5230958
So does OP's post.

>>5230943
Like.. i? i works rather well

>>5230983
Not like i. Not like i at all.

x^2 + 1 = 0

Calculations don't add up?

x = i

Add a hypothetical "imaginary" number to account for inaccuracy.

Now you're doing math like a mathematician.

>>5232337
"inaccuracy".
Do you even know about i?

>>5231030
my favorite

<span class="math">\sum_{n_1 \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{n_3 \in \mathbb{Z} } f(n_1,n_2,n_3)[/spoiler] (with f being something not funny at all)
ok now let's apply the Dirac to this
<span class="math"> \int_{- \infty}^{infty} \sum \sum \sum f = \sum \sum \sum \int_{- \infty}^{infty} f[/spoiler]
trust me, it works!

<span class="math">\sum_{n_1 \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum{n_3 \in \mathbb{Z}} f(n_1,n_2,n_3)[/spoiler] (with f being something not funny at all)
ok now let's apply the Dirac to this
<span class="math"> \int_{- \infty}^{infty} \sum \sum \sum f = \sum \sum \sum \int_{- \infty}^{infty} f[/spoiler]
trust me, it works!

<span class="math">\sum_{n_1 \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{n_3 \in \mathbb{Z}} f(n_1,n_2,n_3)[/spoiler] (with f being something not funny at all)
ok now let's apply the Dirac to this
<span class="math"> \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} \sum \sum \sum f = \sum \sum \sum \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} f[/spoiler]
trust me, it works!

>>5231030
wow that actually really cracked me up.
fuck physicists.

>>5232337
not sure if trolling

solve 2x=3 for x in Z.
clearly not useful to construct rational numbers.

complex numbers are clearly useless as well.

>>5232337
x + 1 = 0

Calculations don't add up?

x = -1

Add a hypothetical "negative" number to account for inaccuracy.

Now you're doing math like a mathematician.