/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6579420
we can fix it by having people search the archive for similar threads, and read the introduction paragraph of the wiki article about their topic before making idiotic posts, we are not going to give serous answered to the 100th FTL/free energy/terraform the moon/space elevator from common material threads.

>>6579420
Thank you op for this post. I am myself working on putting a more positive spin on my posts and letting the 'what if' posts be an exercise in mental flexibility.

The sciences are just too damn fun to get bogged down in haughty king Joffrey style lambasting.

>>6579429
Why not just create a standard response infographic or something?

i'm referring to mostly novel questions that get bogged down with shitposting

why wouldn't this work /sci/?

What would happen if I transfered my consciousness into a computer and applied machine learning algorithms to it and then transfered it back into my brain? Serious question warranting a serious reply!

>>6579435
can you list some examples?

>>6579420
OP, I've been to several boards long enough to see them form a culture, based on the demographic that frequents this board, it does hone in on a specific subset of people more than the popular boards do.

In other words, /b/ or /v/ might have a vast number of subscribers, but /sci/ and /fa/ and /fit/ and /mu/ have a much more narrow demographic.

I'm not sure if this demographic is actually self-actuating (criteria of 4chan-using demographic created and instilled by the own demographic's usage, or monkey see, monkey do), but I think that I can imagine a number of characteristics it has. One of them being strong values, and the other, distaste. Mentioning twice now, the bias seems to inflict upon new users to perpetuate the fallacy that this board has a broad userbase, because the userbase often inherits its only communicable assets for here, from here.

This general tendency to be unoriginal, combined with /sci/s especially strong mathematical bias (theoretically a very uncreative subset of individuals given that acuity is very rarely broad in a creative-to-analytical spectrum) creates the observation that /sci/ is inherently incapable of having long, deep conversations about theoretical concepts or philosophy. This is also why a philosophy board could not exist lol, there would be a favorite philosophy due to industrial popularity and nobody would enjoy debating anything else, it would simply be examined through the scope of the most popular philosopher's teachings.

If I were you, I wouldn't spend enough time here thinking that 4chan's users actually reflect upon the general population of science oriented individuals, or that a few seemingly intelligent token posts here and there account for the vast ignorance of ~99% of the vocal populace.

tl;dr: 4chan, although useful, is actually a very stupid place, pic related, with irony, hopefully.

>>6579463
this is the saddest sadpost I ever sad

>>6579463
> strong mathematical bias (theoretically a very uncreative subset of individuals given that acuity is very rarely broad in a creative-to-analytical spectrum)
are you retarded?

>>6579463
>theoretical
Stop using that word.

>>6579471
if that's the only thing you've discerned that isn't to your liking, considering it is my least factual statement, isn't bad news.
but it's my firm belief that those who study math are almost never mechanically or artistically creative, unless they have an exceptional IQ. Being creative with math is it's own special and important capacity, but it tends to be very narrow and unrelated to the creative thinking process in things like metaphor, art, mechanics (believe me on mechanics, I have yet to see anything brilliant in mechanics posted to date) or even theoretical physics itself with math as its context's focal.

Is there anything else about my argument that you can disagree upon without just highlighting it or are you exemplifying my argument with your own inane contribution?

>>6579480
>I used it twice, one in reference to a subject (naming), not a proposition, the other as a proposition, that I stand by as theoretical.

>>6579471
>>6579480
two for two.

>>6579420
>Ideas are shot down with no serious investigation into its content or explanation.

>OMG why don't people take my interdimensional quantum consciousness ancient alien theory seriously?!?!?!

Someone got seriously wrecked one too many times lol

>>6579485
You cannot imagine how creative I am. I invented a dozen of memes.

All boards live on banter, constructive and creative threads are rare everywhere on 4chan.
On /sci/, we have banter between fields (additionally to the usually trolls).

Also i think we are so few here that you can't make a topic specific to a field that lives long enough, because there are only 2-3 people who really know what is going on.


That is also the reason why threads often derail into muh maths circlejerk. Most sciences require calc and linear algebra courses, so this is the topic the most people can talk about. Also most people here are undergrads that still dream of the pop-sci stuff - we simply can't talk about current research, because there are to few people to be actually involved in it. Look at the "what is your current research project" threads, everybody posts its topics, until someone see someone from his field and the rest of the thread is a dialogue between those.

No, you fucking faggot retard. You don't deserve a serious reply. We don't need to explain to you for the thousandth time why creationism is wrong, why you cannot travel faster than light or why your metaphysical ramblings about transcendental consciousness are not a "scientific theory". No, you didn't break math by dividing by zero and you didn't disprove physics with your ridiculous misinterpretation of Schrodinger's cat. Come back when you finished high school.

>>6579420
I believe you're expecting too much out of nothing ; this just a discussion board ( an online forum ) where people of all ages talk about different subjects .
There is no way to forbid acces to kidz who usually do nothing but troll everything/everywhere or ask about time travel paranoia or conspiracies.
You are entitled to have your own opinion though . I personally enjoy /sci/ more than any other board on 4chan

Because /sci/ is a hive of pseudo-skeptics/intellectuals.

They've mastered the art of perfect imitating the results of an intellgent mind without going through the effort to actually cultivate one, leaving them unsure how to approach new topics or ideas, and thus they just fall on their old ways in order to handle things they don't understand.

>>6579566
My IQ is 110 and I got an A in calculus. I'm a true intellectual. Come at me bro!

>>6579571
Lol,that's pretty intense ; when did you study calculus ? Are you american by chance ?

>>6579571
That's nothing, I got a 235 IQ on this online test I took and I'm in *college level algebra* even though I'm still in high school. I am an elite intellect.

We've had this thread all too many times in the past.

It's a pointless pursuit and it will never happen.

Moot doesn't care.

Mods don't care.

Shitposters don't care about having one quality anonymous place to have serious discussion of science and math.

If you want actual serious discussion, just go somewhere else.

Everyone who has been here the 3+ years has learned this already, and the only reason they still come is untreated OCD or to laugh at the 24/7 troll-retardation cycle.

>>6579420
>Ideas are shot down with no serious investigation into its content or explanation.
Your theory which you came up in the bathroom, with not one single bit of math or evidence behind it is not a theory.
It's you who has to do that, not us.

>>6579420
this board isn't "shit"
It isn't perfect, but what is?
I agree that there are abrasive personality types here, but without them... it just wouldn't be as much fun.
I find it interesting debating anons whose's major thrill in life is the claustrophobic rush from a hermetically sealed mind.

dubito ergo cogito ergo sum

this is the new age agora of socratic method, if you can hear above the babble and noise you might learn something

>>6579589
>Everyone who has been here the 3+ years has learned this already, and the only reason they still come is untreated OCD or to laugh at the 24/7 troll-retardation cycle.

This guy understands. In the past there were the occasional good treads, back when Josef and OrganicEuphoria were still around. 99% of all /sci/ has always been threads about IQ and general bullshit.

>>6579648
>99% of all /sci/ has always been threads about IQ and general bullshit.
Also note that this statement can easily be generalized to cover any board on this site.

This board is shit
All other boards are shit except /sp
/sp is GOAT
>MESSI MESSI MESSI MESSI MESSI MESSI MESSI MESSI MESSI MESSI MESSI MESSI MESSI MESSI MESSI MESSI

>>6579420

When half of the questions are "HOW CAN WE HAVE FASTER THAN LIGHT TRAVEL USING ONLY FREE, LIMITLESS QUANTUM ENERGY DERIVED FROM BIGFOOT'S SEMEN???", I think /sci/ posters are justified in shooting people's "ideas" down.

There is actually a surprisingly high number of decent analysis threads on /sci/. I see a lot of interesting stuff posted in these threads. I think its because its something reasonably 'deep' that Physicists, applied and pure mathematicians here can all contribute too.

Pretty much every other thread is awful though

The one suggestion I can make is can people stop freaking the fuck out about hw threads. If there was some way to get people to begin hw threads in a more open ended way about a topic they could be quite good eg. "here is some problem about Taylor series also could someone give some intuition about Taylor series" could lead to a decent thread.

>>6579579
If he is, he better be in high school (secondary).

if you're looking for intelligent, productive discussion on 4chan... you might get some of it, but mostly you'll get a clusterfuck. Seeing the different kinds of clusterfucks that attracts people of different interests is interesting -- /lgbt/ is way more like /b/ then they'd have you believe --- I don't know how entertaining the board would be if there wasn't the normal 4chan bullshit.

You don't go into /lit/ without having read a single book. You don't go into /sp/ and claim football is shit when you don't even know the rules.

Yet so many of the threads on /sci/ is created by people who have no knowledge and respect of the field that their topic is about. Of course it's fine if you just have a question, but there's way of asking them that don't make you look like a complete jerk.

tl;dr people on /sci/ are often dismissive because many threads here are created by people who lack the most basic scientific understanding.

>>6579680
>You don't go into /lit/ without having read a single book. You don't go into /sp/ and claim football is shit when you don't even know the rules.
People do this on literally every board.
>Hey /mu/, can we talk about how pop and (c)rap suck?

>>6579680
not on 4chan, but you should see other sites with they have an economics board. 70-90% of the people who post there are just people who watch too much cable news and quite literally don't even know what economics is. Which is sad because I've been unable to find a good economics forum. The only one I found was for Ph.D. students and professors and apparently economists are the cattiest group of academics on the planet. There's even /biz/ on 4chan, which is literally just post after post of people proposing the most bathshit insane and asinine business ideas they can come up with. So definitely not unique to /sci/ or even very bad here.

I believe more scholarly articles should be jared.

>>6579420

-------420

My best threads get deleted when my shitty threads get hundreds of posts. Why are scimods so fucking assholes that when there is actually scientific post they go and delete it... because? The conversation is over or derailed or something like that. Its pretty fucking annoying and makes me wanna abandon this otherwise brilliant board.

Stupid questions should have simple and quick answers and usually those stupid questions are what everyone thinks but are afraid to say.

WE WANT CHANGE WE wanT CHANGE

>>6579754
there is a bump limit on 4chan, you know.

>>6579664
justified in shooting ideas down? are you mentally retarded? If you ever destroy ones idea or bubble they live in it will change the person and usually to bad direction. Best way to shoot a shitty idea is to actually prove it simple as possible: simply wrong.

Cant be that hard from you /sci/over9000IQ-bros ... Sounds like kid talking when "lol we are justified to shoot ideas down"

>>6579680
>You don't go into /lit/ without having read a single book

I do. Whatcha gonna do about it?

>>6579761
Are YOU mentally retarded? Obviously he was talking about the non-serious kind of thread. The kind of thread where the OP asks a joke question or plainly shitposts out of boredom. The kind of thread that should die with only one or two "lol" replies. Unfortunately there is autistic dimwits like you on this board. You are taking jokes and obvious nonsense too seriously and too literally, hence you keep these threads bumped with moronic "discussion", not noticing that said "discussion" actually only consists of you being autistic and other posters making fun of you.

>>6579761
Yep, I'm sure it would deeply hurt someone's feelings if we dismissed "limitless quantum energy derived from bigfoot's semen". This idea must be considered seriously and scientifically.

>>6579684
>missing the point

Let me dumb this down for you.

/sci/ users with a background in science or math want to go to a board where they can get away from all the dipshits who don't know shit about science or math and spout off retarded shit. Unfortunately, said dipshits look at /sci/ and they see it as the one place where they can find experts to answer their dipshit questions. /sci/ users have grown accustomed to the constant stream of shit that runs through /sci/ and naturally they're dismissive of it. On occasion you may find some /sci/ users who are interested in putting you on the right path but generally what you'll find are /sci/ users who are interested in telling you why you're a dipshit.

Imagine if instead of /lit/ moot had created /wri/, a writing board, and said board was flooded with users constantly asking:
-about the latest harry potter, game of thrones, etc...
-if writers should be censored for depicting rape, sexism, racism, etc...
-why [fan-fiction, blogging, comics, etc...] isn't taken seriously by the board.
-if some ridiculous get rich quick as a writer scheme actually works.
-basic english and grammar questions like "what are nouns?"
-what writing is good for in the first place or claiming that it's just a means for brainwashing people.
-which publishers to try and publish their novel with even though they have no idea what their novel will be about.
and so on. This is pretty much what /sci/ is like.

>>6579761
With ideas that dumb you can rest assured that the person was already heading in a bad direction.

>>6579776
Actually these are pretty much the threads /lit/ has every day.

>>6579782
Coincidentally /lit/ is shit.

So can someone tell me why we can't talk about meditation on here?

>>6579788
Because spiritual exercises belong on /x/. You're free to talk about the neuroscientific research related to meditation though.

>>6579782
Well yea, but /lit/ is a literature board. Not a board for creative writers to discuss the creative process.

/sci/ isn't a highschool board, pop-sci board, or education general board.

>tfw you appreciate his smuggery

>>6579788
Do you have a background in neurophysiology and have some interesting piece of knowledge to contribute to others? If so then go ahead.
Are you someone with no background in the topic but have a background in science and are willing to put in some work to understand the basics of said topic? Then if you're really lucky you might find someone knowledgeable who can direct you to a textbook, research papers, or other resources.
Do you have only a layman's grasp of science and are looking for someone else to validate your beliefs? Then no, there is absolutely nothing good that can come from your thread for anyone.

>>6579440
>and applied machine learning algorithms to it
What do you mean by that? Using an algorithm to optimize your brain?

>>6579440
Machine Learning algorithms don't work like that. They're kind of like polynomial regression on steroids. The question itself doesn't actually make sense. It's like asking.

>What would happen if I drove my boat on the freeway and use NOS on it and then drove it back into the water?

This board is not usually so smug as to be talking about itself. Please forgive me for pointing out that this is off topic.

>>6580167
She should be looking for a Wizard , only wizards can summon demons ; it's common knowledge

What if the wizard only summons a half-demon?

>>6580244
OP: posts like this are why you're a faggot

zip zap woo scoobity bee booooo

There is much smuggery on this board and we could stand to be more welcoming of people who are genuinely interested in learning about science. People like this >>6579927 deserve what they get and should be cleansed from the catalog. The reception of this question >>6576920 is largely bullshit pessimists minus the few helpful responses. If you say something can't be done, you should provide reasons to at least open an invitation for debate. Otherwise you're just being an asshole. I'll never understand why there's so much of this hostility.

>>6580244
>childish cartoons :^)

>>6580183
Maybe. Maybe a witch (or whatever she was) can supply a demon.

/sci/ is a great board and doesn't need no improvement

>>6580335
>>6580305
Why bring the anime here tho? I can understand why you might enjoy posting it but I often get the sense you guys post it here to be contrary to people who think it's off-topic and distracting. Pls enlighten me.

>>6580344
Anime is the ultimate in video science. The beautiful images are created by artists. (Maybe I'm troweling it on a little thick there.)

Rule 6 says "The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments."
We do the best we can.

Rule 8 says: "Complaining about 4chan (its policies, moderation, etc.) on the imageboards can result in post deletion and banishment. The administration will address your questions, comments, complaints, and concerns via the Feedback page."

So we don't want to complain too much about the thread being off topic. But when someone starts a thread for the purpose of complaining about other posters, that might be annoying. Anime is more fun then just being abusive to the O.P. Presumably if the O.P. wants abuse, he could go to perhaps /b and post under the name "abuse me."

There are no stupid questions, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.

>>6579520
>We don't need to explain to you for the thousandth time why creationism is wrong
Creation is true.

Evolution is false.
I believe in natural selection, but it does not account for new or previously existing information.
All life does not have a common ancestor that just happened to come alive.
God made us, and it is obvious to anyone who is not blinded by their own hatred of Him.
Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

http://creation.com/laws-of-information-1

We could have an intelligent discussion on the topic if you like.
Or you guys can call me names until the Mods delete the thread.

>>6581037
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

>>6581037
>We could have an intelligent discussion on the topic if you like.
What does your cosmic abstract have to do with science? The topic of the board is science after all.

>>6581037
>pissing in an ocean of piss

>>6579795
It's an attentional task. That has absolutely no spiritual connotations.

>>6581048
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation
>Meditation is a practice in which an individual trains the mind or induces a mode of consciousness

definition "spiritual":
>of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

>>6581050
Yes, those definitions agree with me. The first does not imply the second.

>>6581051
Please learn English.

>>6581043
Mutations are followed by a loss of information, not a gain.
Even if the opposite were true. This does not account for the original information that mutated.
http://vimeo.com/35088933

The previously linked article uses logic.
How is it an appeal to authority?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question
You assume materialism is true, therefore God cannot be real.

You might be thinking that I suffer the same flaw in believing the bible is true.
The problem is I first assumed it was false, but the evidence leads me to believe that it must be true.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible
>>6581044
The previously linked article uses scientific laws as a base for the argument.
How is that unscientific?

>>6581064
I have.

>>6581068
Are you seriously wasting your time arguing a position you don't even believe? Go outside. Your pathetic.

>>6581072
What makes you think I do not believe?
I assure you I am a Christian.

>>6581071
nope

>>6581075
nope

>>6581076
>>>6581071 (You)
>nope
Yes.

>>6581077
nope

>>6581079
Repeating yourself won't make you right.

>>6581080
Repetition can change a lot of things. 0.9 or 0.99 is smaller than 1 but by the power of repetition 0.999.... becomes 1.

>>6581068
>The previously linked article uses scientific laws as a base for the argument.
>How is that unscientific?
Your hypothesis still must be testable in order to be considered science. Otherwise you could make all sorts of ridiculous arguments. Just look at all the cosmic abstracts in comics.

>>6581083
>infinite repetition
>infinity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKy_VTBq0yk

>>6581085
You can test it. Find something that fits the definition of universal information, determine the source, was that source an intelligent one?
You can falsify it. Prove that "universal information" has arisen from a strictly materialistic source.
All we need is one example to falsify the claims.

Its funny you don't place the same restrictions on evolution.
It takes millions of years, so of course we don't see it happening.

Or on the hypothesis of abiogenesis.
It must have happened although it cannot be observed, nor demonstrated.

>>6579788
I've seen several threads discussing meditation in a relatively civilized manner. Sure there are people with meditation=hippy bullshit insecurities that oppose it, but they generally aren't giving any constructive input anyway.

>>6581089
There is an excess of information on evolution anon, in particular on natural selection. Abiogenesis also comprises of a bunch of different hypothesis, many of which have been tested separately.

Your "experiment" doesn't actually make sense. Especially since terms like "intelligent" aren't even defined. Worse, it doesn't even support your argument unless you're so lax with your definitions that you run into counter-evidence via abiogenesis theories and experiments.

>>6581094
In Neurophysiology, the objective properties of meditation are studied. Only in psychology are the subjective properties of meditation studied (stress levels and other garbage). Unfortunately, psychology is so subjective and lacks so much rigor that it's practically a pseudoscience.

>>6581096
>Especially since terms like "intelligent" aren't even defined

In cognitive science "intelligence" is defined by IQ.

>>6581099
No it's not. Intelligence is sometimes measured by IQ and how that measure works is largely subjective. Worse, cognitive science is psychology.

You're arguing semantics at this point anon.

>>6581101
IQ is the accepted definition of intelligence in cognitive science and clinical psychiatry. If your'e deficient in spatial reasoning, symbolic and geometric pattern recognition, verbal comprehension, logical inference etc etc, then you're diagnosed with intellectual disability aka mental retardation. If you excel in these skill - like I do - you're gonna have it much easier in an academic environment. The reliability and the predictive power of IQ on things like educational achievements, socio-economic status etc have been confirmed in hundreds of scientific studies.

>>6581098
Psychology is empirical experiments and applied statistics. A science cannot be more rigorous than that.

>>6581104
The empirical experiments are not properly controlled nor properly reproducible. The sample sizes are tiny when compared to a population of 7 billion. The idea that psychology is as rigorous as the physical sciences is laughable.

>>6581102
Okay then. If your deity is intelligent, then what is it's IQ?

>>6580284
My interpretation is that the hostile attitude is an attempt to appear superior, i.e. people are pointlessly attempting to win arguments.
For anything science related I'd rather see people working together than competing against each other. Bantering and bickering rarely amounts to anything.

>>6581108
The optimal sample sizes are chosen by rigorous mathematical statistics. Are you saying math is wrong?

>>6581096
>run into counter-evidence via abiogenesis theories and experiments.

Abiogenesis has never once been confirmed.
As an unconfirmed hypothesis it can hardly be said to refute anything.

Turns out the laws of information refutes the claims made by such "theories".

>>6581109
I don't know.
But it is quite obviously far superior to anything we have seen.

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” - Bill Gates, The Road Ahead.

The DNA double helix is two nanometers wide and is barely observable, even with an electron microscope.
If all the letters (A,T,C, and G) within a single human cell were typed (at twelve letters per inch) in one continuous line, this string of letters would expand for a distance of nearly 7,900 miles.

DNA contains the highest information density known to man.

You seem to be trying to change the subject.

>>6581109
>implying I'm the same poster

we should have more 300+ post threads about butts. that'll improve the quality of this board.

>>6581116
>Abiogenesis has never once been confirmed.
>As an unconfirmed hypothesis it can hardly be said to refute anything.
There are many parts to Abiogenesis. The whole hasn't been proved but many of its parts have. Any of those parts are enough to provide counter-evidence.

>>6581116
>But it is quite obviously far superior to anything we have seen.
IQ involves both intelligence and age. What about its age, does your deity have a defined age? It seems to me that IQ doesn't apply to your cosmic abstract. In other words, by the parameters you described in your experiment, it is not intelligent and the experiment is disproved trivially.

>>6581121
>Any of those parts are enough to provide counter-evidence.
Could you give specific examples?

>It seems to me that IQ doesn't apply to your cosmic abstract.
It seems to me you are missing the point.

It is also quite obvious you have not read the article.
http://creation.com/laws-of-information-1

You have not refuted any of the claims, nor will you.
I have to go to work. Have fun believing a lie.
Good day sir.

>>6581131
>Could you give specific examples?
30 seconds in google scholar.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/abs/nature08013.html

>It seems to me you are missing the point.
No anon, you are trying to use IQ to rigorously define whether or not something is intelligent as part of your experiment. Unfortunately the definition you have chosen does not support your argument.

>It is also quite obvious you have not read the article.
>http://creation.com/laws-of-information-1
Cite proper journal articles instead of blog posts and you'll find no shortage of people interested in reading them.

So what universities you all hail from?

>>6581131
The reasoning behind the first law of information as proposed by your source
>In our common experience we observe that an apple tree bears apples, a pear tree yields pears, and a thistle brings forth thistle seeds. Similarly, horses give birth to foals, cows to calves and women to human babies. Likewise, we can observe that something which is itself solely material never creates anything non-material.

Holy false analogy Batman!

>>6579420
>The major issue I have with this board is the ingrained 'can't do' attitude it seems to have.
>Ideas are shot down with no serious investigation into its content or explanation.
>Thats not how science operates.

You're joking, right? This must be a troll.

That "can't do" attitude is called SKEPTICAL INQUIRY. That's how science works.

/sci/'s major problem is a nearly religious attitude about Human progress with this revolting mass of dehumanizing technology.

>>6579420

>why can't free energy, tesla great idea etc
second law of thermodynamics
>string theory/M theory w/e
untestable and you need a ridiculous amount of math to understand any of it
>politics/social science
not science
>homework threads
it is seriously not anyone's obligation to help you do your grade school homework. Ask something interesting (above babby level), and are actually some good responses on /sci/. Seriously a lot of posters would actually love to help you with linear algebra or thermodynamics or something. If you post grade school stuff everyone would rather troll you.
>philosophy
fuck off

>>6581209
>linear algebra
>implying not grade school

get a load of this pleb

>>6581213

>implying I meant doing calculations
Linear Algebra is an incredibly deep subject.

>>6581214
>Linear Algebra is an incredibly deep subject.

No, it isn't.

How come it's called linear algebra when all the numbers are in a box, not in a straight line?

>>6581031
(Being hopelessly outnumbered, I, the coward that I am, determined to switch sides and join the inquisitive idiots. )

>>6579438
Both magnets are attracted to each other equally so they cancel out.

>>6579513
> I invented a dozen of memes.
do you even english

>>6581215
>No, it isn't.

Not in one semester it isn't. But the subject itself is.

>>6581638
*meme's

Oh no, I made a typo.

>>6581251
>How come it's called linear algebra when all the numbers are in a box, not in a straight line?
Checkmate atheists.

>>6579420
>This is why we have a failing scientific literacy rate.
>Of non-scientists

I paid $40k to gain access to a network of people who would shove a bunch of facts up my ass and constantly evaluate if it reached my brain. Why should I sit here and give people explanations to why an idea is stupid? Read some books.

>>6581677
>mfw americlaps have to pay for university

I get better education than you FOR FREE

>>6579435
You mean like this?

>>6581689
>I get better education than you FOR FREE

Better education is just your opinion. I've met some almost intimidatingly smart individuals in my field who are always willing to discuss their work. Most of my great experiences from undergrad were outside classrooms, and I just had to find them myself. Education is about building a network with people, and it's really about what you make of it.

But, free, yes that is true. I do envy you for that.

>>6581703
>You_are_everything_wrong_with_this_world.jpg

You retarded logic is the kind of bullshit stupid idiots use to justify why their kids don't need education. Great job moron.

>>6581731
uhg
>scrolling through /sci/
>see the topic of this thread
>see your post
>realize that YOU are the reason this board is so shit
Why do you feel you must insult people you don't agree with? Is it an inferiority complex?! This board is for math and science, and this board would be a lot less shitty if people stuck to the rules of civil scientific discourse.

Feel bad about your life choices, anon. Feel very bad.

>>6581731
I believe you missed my point, chum

>>6581694
NOT A FUCKING PROOF

Get the fuck out of /sci/ if you think that is correct

>>6581739
>please don't insult people with retarded logic
>it hurts their feelings

Too fucking bad

>>6581759
It's not their feelings I'm concerned about, it's your attitude that I am. Stop shitting up this board by being an asshole. If someone has bad logic, point out the flaws and correct them without derailing threads into shitstorms of insults & counter-insults. Again, you and your attitude are the reason this board is shit.

>>6581759
How is meeting with people outside of class retarded logic. I've had some iffy classes, sure, but usually a person can explain things much better one-on-one. You have to take some initiative.

But I forgot
>lol murrican education
>its shitty amirite
>us euro so stronk
>mfw they clap when class is over

>>6581840
How much do you tip your professor after the lectures?

>>6581806
What's wrong with her attitude? It looks appropriate to me.

>>6581871
It's self-superior. Anon offered no input, carried no discussion, added no value to this board, but still decided it was ok to call someone a retard. Now, I'm not against calling people or their logic retarded, but at least take the time to create a structured argument that shows why that person deserves to be called a retard.
What anon did above was shitposting.

>>6581883
>tu quoque
>pot calling the cattle black

>>6581754
I do believe this is exactly the type of shitposting OP references is the line "Nope, wouldn't work", you arrogant prick.

Apologies if that was posted in irony.

>>6581894
don't apologize for calling out shitposters. They need to be shamed away. And if someone says you're shitposting by calling out shitposters or says you're the pot calling the "cattle" black, just roll your eyes and know that you're helping to improve the content of this board.

B/c everyone on here is a faget that thinks they're everything just cuz they have a 3.8 GPA from high school and a degree in engineering (shit-tier).

>>6581900
No, John. You are the shitposters.

>>6581900
>fighting cancer with more cancer

Great job. You should become a politician. Maybe one day you'll win a Nobel peace prize.

>>6581913
shaming people works when trying to prevent them from saying things like >>6581731
Call them out on it and generally they will think twice before doing it again. After a few times they will learn to explain themselves with words instead of expletives.

>>6581927
>this is what autists actually believe

Thanks for demonstrating that you don't know shit about neither basic psychodynamics nor anonymous imageboard culture.

>>6579420
Bravo, OP. I'm sick of getting banned every time I ask a question about the Apollo hoax. This board is no better than the r/skeptic board on reddit. The dogma is final and questioning is not allowed.
Well fuck you, /sci/. There is no way this piece of shit made it to the moon and back through the van allen belts and the astronauts pranced around the moon in suits made by bra seamstresses.

>>6581929
The topic of this thread is how to improve the quality of this board, is it not? Improving the level of discourse will improve this board dramatically. The fact that it's an anonymous imageboard means nothing- this is not /b/ so we shouldn't act like it is. If the standard of discourse on this board was civil and followed the standards of general scientific discussion, then this board will benefit through better communication and exchange of ideas just as the scientific community at large has benefitted in the same way.

>>6581940
where did the fuck off massive rocket go?

>>6581927
>shaming people works
>>6581945
>improve the quality of this board
>If the standard of discourse on this board was civil

top kek m8

>>6581952
shaming is not the same as shitposting. Shaming is saying "you're shitposting." Civil discourse is polite even when it disagrees with the opponent. These are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to politely tell someone that their post is irrelevant, doesn't add content to the thread or to the board, and should not have been posted. I'm surprised there's so much resistance to this idea considering that shitposting is even against the rules.

>>6581959
>It is entirely possible to politely tell someone that their post is irrelevant, doesn't add content to the thread or to the board, and should not have been posted.

Guess what I've been doing in this thread. But you don't listen. You continue your shitposting. Thanks for proving your own retard method wrong.

>>6581948
earth orbit

>>6581649
this is worse

>>6581940
You deserve to be permabanned you fucking dipshit. Go make your thread in /x/ where it belongs.

>>6581645
This. It can be applied all over mathematics in lots of different interesting ways. There are mathematicians who spend huge portions of their careers working in linear algebra in some way or another.

>>6581894
No, you're an idiot (and probably an underage) with a high school level education in math that shouldn't be here. You can't define the real numbers as decimal strings and use arithmetic to show equality of 2 different strings. It violates the definition of equals and all it does is disproves that decimals form the real number system. To make it work you need to DEFINE an equivalence relation relating strings that end in 9s and those that end in 0s. Thus you CANNNOT prove it but just DEFINE it.

Leave

>>6581135
>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/abs/nature08013.html
>At some stage in the origin of life, an informational polymer must have arisen by purely chemical means.
Assuming the conclusion much?

>but attempts to provide experimental support for this have failed
How sad for you.

>it is far from obvious how such ribonucleotides could have formed from their constituent parts
Indeed.

>Ribose is difficult to form selectively8, 9, and the addition of nucleobases to ribose is inefficient in the case of purines10 and does not occur at all in the case of the canonical pyrimidines
>inefficient
>does not occur at all

I would have loved to read the citations that back up the claim
>Here we show that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed in a short sequence that bypasses free ribose and the nucleobases, and instead proceeds through arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates.
But when I click them I get the same article.
I get the feeling it involves adding specific chemicals at specific times to get what you want.
i.e. intelligence is involved in the process.
Is that assumption false?

Do you really think the fact that we can't measure God's IQ means he is not intelligent?
That seems to be your conclusion.

>Cite proper journal articles...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

>>6581174
I noticed you have made no attempt to refute the claims of the article.
Instead you find one analogy and attack it.

I also noticed no one has bothered to tell me for the thousandth time why creation is wrong.
If it has been explained so often, it should be quite easy to do.
If you have the evidence that refutes creation, why not just make some copy pasta?

Lastly no one has made an attempt at the mathematical impossibility of the bible prophecy.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

I do appreciate being allowed to post this information, even if it is ignored.

>>6582919
>I also noticed no one has bothered to tell me for the thousandth time why creation is wrong.

Just because it's not science doesn't mean it's wrong. Only that it doesn't belong on this board.

>I would have loved to read the citations that back up the claim

That is what the article actually covers. All of the stuff you smugly cited about is just background information.

>>6579420
A board is only as good as its posters and its content:
If you make interesting threads - more people will come.
If you stop acting like condescending assholes to every non-STEM major who wanders in - more people will come.
If you start cool projects or make cool OC - more people will come.


If posters on /sci/ spent half as much time and effort creating interesting discussions or answering questions from visiting anons or making quality OC as they currently spend sperging out over homework threads and bitching about how much /sci/ sucks

... then /sci/ wouldn't suck

>>6584247
what the hell is this?

>>6584305
>answering questions from visiting anons
>If you stop acting like condescending assholes to every non-STEM major who wanders in

Why would we want to become tutors to non-stem people? Besides, almost every visiting anon only comes in to seek validation for whatever retarded shit they believe (just look at the /pol/esmokers). At best what we'll get are people who come in expecting us to teach them our degrees. This is like claiming that /g/ becoming a computer help board would make it a better board.

>>6584460
I'm not suggesting taking time to answer ever "sun made of lava/sun made of ice" question.

But all too often I see threads made by laypersons asking questions about physics, astronomy, biology, etc only to be greeted with an endless torrent of shitty, smug replies.

A thread asking a simple question about black holes could spark a 300 post discussion of GR, astrophysics, and cosmology if given the chance.

>>6579420
If we had serious ideas related to our fields, we'd write them up or tell them to our advisors, not post them on 4chan. The majority of OPs here are either trolls or undergrads/highschoolers whose questions will usually be answered for them in the next semester and a half (or are getting homework help). I'm here for the OCD, and to ogle posts about math I don't understand.

If you want to learn, pick up a textbook. If you can't learn it from one of them, I don't know what an imageboard is going to do for you.

>>6584504
>If we had serious ideas related to our fields, we'd write them up or tell them to our advisors
Wonderful thing about the internet age - there's thousands of people you can share and discuss ideas with available to you with a few keystrokes.

Science should be shared, not hoarded.

>>6584502
>A thread asking a simple question about black holes could spark a 300 post discussion of GR, astrophysics, and cosmology if given the chance.
No, it couldn't. Threads about black holes are always spurned by pop-science news articles or documentaries that claim ridiculous shit about black holes. So much bad misinformation is thrown around in said threads that people always start off ridiculing the thread and end up raging while explaining babby physics shit in the most condescending way they can.

GR isn't cutting edge physics, no one wants to waste their time explaining the basics to people who didn't take the time to learn them in highschool.

>>6584504
>If we had serious ideas related to our fields, we'd write them up or tell them to our advisors, not post them on 4chan.

Groundbreaking ideas aren't the only things that make our fields interesting. Also, there's so much material and so much interconnectedness between different branches of our fields that it's impossible for universities to cover but the most basic core essentials. So of course there are lots of people who look for resources on how X field is related to Y field, or how X branch of math can also be approached by Y branch of math. If this sounds new to you then you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

>I'm here for the OCD, and to ogle posts about math I don't understand.
Fuck off, you are the cancer.

>>6584543
This guy gets it - there's more to science than just discussing plots with your graduate advisor. Sharing ideas, discussing what you study with others, exposing yourself to other fields - there's a wealth of knowledge across dozens of different disciplines, and all you have to do is be willing to ask and to share.

Case in point we've got a thread going on now for people to share research they're working on. It's fantastic - people are discussing everything from plasma physics to marine biology.
>>6568708

>>6582227
he's not defining them as decimal strings, he's defining the sum of a convergent sequence, then proving a well established theorem of real analysis and showing how said theorem can be used to evaluate the sequence.

>>6584502
>But all too often I see threads made by laypersons asking questions about physics, astronomy, biology, etc only to be greeted with an endless torrent of shitty, smug replies.

That's because those of us who actually took the time to learn these things don't particularly want to spend a whole lot of time explaining these things to laypeople. I guess I shouldn't speak for others, but it seems that most of the people who actually know anything about STEM come here want to discuss things with their peers, not explain shit to retards all day. I suppose I shouldn't make generalizations, but it seems to me that most people on /sci/ feel this way.

>A thread asking a simple question about black holes could spark a 300 post discussion of GR, astrophysics, and cosmology if given the chance.

This is unlikely, unless you're talking about some really new field of research(or the thread goes way off topic), it's extremely likely that someone has already thought of your idea/question and it's been figured out. If you really want to start these threads, my advice would be to try and find a book on the subject first. Most subjects have plenty of books aimed at a non-technical audience, and they're often (not always though) written by an expert in the field, moreover, while books like these will usually only give you the broadest possible overview of their subject matter, they still tend to be a step-up from IFLS/Cosmos/whichever shitty clickbait news site first told you about quantum theory. So basically what I'm saying is that you should at least make some meager attempt to know what you're talking about if you want the people who've been studying the subject for years to not just shoot you down.

That said, there are probably plenty of sub-reddits where people will happily answer your questions if you jerk of their e-peen enough, so maybe you should look around a bit

>>6584619
So what I'm getting from you is that you think places like /sci/ should be exclusive little clubs for scientists. No "retards"/laypersons allowed.


This is the exact attitude that's fostered so much public animosity and distrust towards the scientific community in recent decades. Too many researchers and graduate students adopt an attitude of elitism and self-exclusion, turning our profession into a collection of pompous pedants.

Even in your response you automatically jump to the conclusion that since I'm calling for more civility and tolerance towards threads started by laypersons, that I must be some uneducated moron who doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't belong. You react to me with total hostility - assuming I've never picked up a book and that I get all my understanding of subjects from second-rate science news websites - I'm a third year PhD student.


I'm not suggesting /sci/ turn into the 'homework help' board, or that posters be required on pain of ban to answer every silly question that gets posted, I'm just saying that whether you like it or not /sci/ is open to the public and we should stop treating every non-STEM person who visits the board like they're intruding in our secret clubhouse

>>6585035
>third year PhD student

In what non-STEM subject?

>>6585055
Plasma physics... I guess that's not STEM enough for some people

>>6585035
We are not the science version of tech-support. If you want to make a forum like then then by all means do.

Fact is that no matter how we treat laypersons it won't do anything to change the way the public sees STEM (in either direction).

>>6585035
I like explaining things and got no problem discussing math with scientists or social science students. What makes me twitch however, is when somebody clearly not competent enough calls out bullshit at a concept he doesn't understand. It's okay to not know things, it's okay to be outright stupid. What annoys me is when you don't know shit and go correct people who got a basic grasp of the problem and the mechanisms involved. It's just really annoying on many levels and I believe it's a behaviour more commonly found in people who can make up for lack of understanding by using fancy words and grammar in their respective subjects.

I mean if I post in a physics thread it's mostly just how it appears to be from my understanding. If someone says that a cylinder at half the speed of light behaves in a certain way, I won't disagree and call him a moron, just to go on implying he went to a community college and is a retard inbred, because I'm simply not competent enough to make that judgement. Yet if you note that some definition alters from author to author you are guaranteed to get a reply of someone feeling the urge to tell you, that you are wrong and that there is one true definition and if you deviate from that way you go to hell because you are very stupid and belong to /b/. It's like what the fuck, how can you be so incompetent and so little aware of that fact at the same time? I didn't thought the Dunning-Krueger-effect was possible to such extents, it's horrific.

>>6585090
>We are not the science version of tech-support.
Nor are we an exclusive club for graduate students and post-docs


People on /sci/ don't need to go out of their way to make every Lay Larry and First-Year Frank feel welcome, but they also don't need to go out of their way to act like pompous assholes by insulting, attacking, and ostracizing anyone they suspect of having less formal education than they do.

>>6585182
Just look at that guy:
>>6585180
>physics is surely full of BS, right? I see snippets of it on /sci/. How the hell can you tell what happened so long ago?

I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty damn sure that he has no idea what he is talking about, but assumes it is mostly bullshit. How can you be so arrogant when you are clearly highly incompetent?

I don't mind people not knowing things or being stupid, I'm knowledgable in very restricted field and not the brightest guy, but at least I'm aware I got no idea what modern physics are about and I won't go and call bullshit on concepts I didn't look into. It's not about being humble, it's about not being a pretentious little shit.

>>6585197
I just read through that sentence again and utter rage filled my heart and clouded my vision.

>I see snippets of it on /sci/.
This is what he founds his judgment on.
>How the hell can you tell what happened so long ago?
He can't understand something from snippets of it on /sci/
>physics is surely full of BS, right?
This is his conclusion, better call bullshit on something.

I mean, that just happend, you can look at it, and stuff like that happens all the time. What the actual fuck.

>>6585197
Oh I'm not saying there aren't people who are legitimate trolls or ignorant motherfuckers who deserve no attention.

But compare it to something like >>6584995

Here's a guy asking what, for most of us, are very basic questions about relativity. People could have mocked him for his ignorance, reported his thread, banned him... but instead most people are responding to him with genuinely informative, civil responses and the poster is actually learning something - and that's a good thing.

>>6584591
>he's defining the sum of a convergent sequence

That's a logical fallacy as irrational numbers ONLY are convergent in the REALS. You're trying to define it as decimal strings using your own intuitive vague notion of what numbers "means" without defining the equivalence relation and proving it exist by ASSUMING your construction is consistent. You're horribly abusing math by doing that and clearly don't belong here.

>>6585218

Yeah I agree. I got no problems with laymen, even more since everyone is a laymen in some field. I got a problem with annoying trolls, no matter how much they know about the topic at hand. Sadly, the annoying trolls are mostly laymen or act as if they were.

I'd admit that sometimes trolls just overcomplicate things and throw in fancy concepts to hide a logical fallacy.

I don't know man, I think this isn't about trolls, I think it's about shitposting.

Yeah the thread you quoted seems to be pretty cool. When he asked, whether he could skip the math, nobody directly insulted him, wich is a good thing I guess.

>>6579420
Make a specific board for shit-flinging so all the people starting college major flamewars can just go there

>>6579677
>/lgbt/ is way more like /b/ then they'd have you believe
Seriously, though

>>6579420
I think we need to focus more on learning things (what science is for anyways) from people from different disciplines instead of putting down other peoples' college majors

>LOLOL ur a psych major psych =/= science le $300k starting stem master race reporting in
>Lol physics majors don't know math lolol

Is not a very scientific discussion

>>6582227
>>6585227

Ah, nice to have an example in the same thread.

This is the shit I was talking about. He is to incompetent to judge the proof, but his first reaction is not critic (upon wich someone could have explained it to him) but namecalling.

The proof understands 0.999... as infinite decimal expension, wich is the value of a series. But he doesn't understand infinite decimal expansions as values of series, but as infinite strings with a mapping into the real line. He simply doesn't understand the proof. Now let's look at his first two posts:

>>6581754
>>6582227

This isn't a smuggly superior phd insulting poor laymen, it's the laymen throwing feces at somebody doing maths. This guy is an asshole and if people are unfriendly to him, I'm perfectly okay with it.

>You're trying to define it as decimal strings using your own intuitive vague notion of what numbers "means" without defining the equivalence relation and proving it exist by ASSUMING your construction is consistent.

He made some sense into something he didn't understood (in a way it wasn't intended to), noticed it doesn't work out and then just went on to assume that he is the one at right. Then he started his battery of insults. If he had asked about the first equality, someone would have given him this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_representation

Now he just wasted everyones time by insulting someone.

>>6585218
On the other side of it you have threads like this with really basic questions that have been asked countless times.

>>6584982

This question gets asked at least once a week. Is the solution to have a thread about this constantly occupying the front page? This isn't even nearly as bad as troll physics questions can get. There's also FTL, drake equation, multiverse, quantum [computing/teleportation/whathaveyou], time travel, space travel, terraforming, etc.. questions.

When users do ask legitimate questions and show they've made an effort to understand things you almost always see /sci/ users tripping over each other to give their version of an explanation.

I like the current trend of having a big 'stupid questions' thread ongoing at all times.

>>6585278
How about you read wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Infinite_decimal_representation

>This construction can be rigorously shown to satisfy all of the real axioms after defining an equivalence relation over the set that defines 1 =eq 0.999... as well as for any other nonzero decimals with only finitely many nonzero terms in the decimal string with its trailing 9s version. With this construction of the reals, all proofs of the statement 1 = .999... can be viewed as implicitly assuming the equality when any operations are performed on the real numbers.

You're not proving SHIT, it's defined. Your need to feel smug by portraying simple series as something highly complicated and theoretical is why you should never post here.

>>6585287
>quantum computing
Why is quantum computing a troll topic? It's a legitimate field.

>>6585339
It is, and there have been productive threads about it. I was referring specifically to the people who come in from other boards and make crystal ball threads about what gaming will be like when we have quantum computers and other retarded shit that makes it obvious they have absolutely no understanding about quantum computing beyond some shit they read on a pop-sci article.

>>6585332

Yeah:
>with this construction of the reals

Indeed, if you think of the reals as strings with the equivalence relation, you already have the equality.

I think the proof however isn't intended for an audience that sees the reals in that way.

If you introduce the reals with dedekind cuts and view the decimal representation as value of a series, the proof is meaningful.

I didn't portray series or the proof as too complicated for you, I said you didn't understand the setting and started insulting someone.

>>6585371
>I think the proof however isn't intended for an audience that sees the reals in that way.
see:
>Commonly in secondary schools' mathematics education, the real numbers are constructed by defining a number using an integer followed by a radix point and an infinite sequence written out as a string to represent the fractional part of any given real number. In this construction, the set of any combination of integers and digits after the decimal point (or radix point in non-base 10 systems) are the set of real numbers.

To the audience of the proof, the reals ARE decimal and vice versa. That's exactly why that proof is TERRIBLE for them because you show 2 unequal elements are equal and point to intuition about magnitudes for justification. All you actually do is prove that the field operation are inconsistent rather than show equality.

>and view the decimal representation as value of a series, the proof is meaningful.

But you're assuming uniqueness of the reals that the decimals can correspond to cuts and hence assuming the decimals form real numbers.

>>6585287
>I like the current trend of having a big 'stupid questions' thread ongoing at all times.
I like that - we should come up with a list of the 'top 20' or something questions that people ask, have people come up with the best answers to them, and have them up in a sticky or something

>>6585404
I completely agree. That is a great idea.

>>6585403

Dude, it's a meaningfull proof or not depending on your understanding of the reals and of what 0.999... means.

If you think of a real number as dedekind cuts for example, and of 0.999... as the value of the series over 9*10^(-n) (9 and 10 are dedekind cuts here) than it's a legit proof.

>To the audience of the proof, the reals ARE decimal and vice versa.

Well these are just opinions. I don't think the proof is intended for people for wich the statement to be shown follows almost directly from their axiomatic system. But even if the author was intending the proof like that, it's still a legit proof to those who define the reals in another way.

>But you're assuming uniqueness of the reals that the decimals can correspond to cuts and hence assuming the decimals form real numbers.

The decimal is a shorthand for the value of a series. Not the string is a real number, it is a word meaning the value of a series.

>>6579631
>>6579664
>>6584502
>>6584619
>>6585035
>>6585097
>>6585210

I come to this board sometime, haven’t partaken in this discussion yet but wish to.

There are three main ideas here.

First is, /sci/ should not sperge-out at non-STEMS. Sometimes I see threads where people with no historic feeling whatsoever and a high-school knowledge of math call others retarded because they want to discuss a topic that is not bon-ton on /sci/. Obviously, these people need to be hanged on the highest /pol/. More generally, science =/= STEM. So I agree with this point.

Counter to this is the valid remark that people judge something they know nothing about of and come to /sci/ claiming it’s bullshit. Or alternatively people who have seen a pop-sci series and think they have developed a new theory. Both positions are rather insulting to people who actually devote large parts of their lives to science. I think this happens on /sci/ indeed because of anonymity etc., but also think it is a general trend in society to demand uniqueness in every person (hence everybody wants to be a special snowflake) combined with a tendency that people value themselves and their time very highly. The latter is in my opinion partially a result of how easy modern day society has become. Combine this with the rise of geek culture and you get people who demand to be respected as geniuses in a day, i.e. on the basis of their thoughts they had while sitting on the loo.

(cont.)

>>6585657
The third point is that it can be rather amusing to see all of this happen time after time. I’ve seen beautiful arguments why 0.9.. doesn’t equal 1, why mathematics is flawed or how science suppresses perpetual motion machines, race studies, global warming (or lack thereof) etc.

I think you should consider the fact that there actually are way more specific and serious forums for students and professionals to discuss their theories. On the other hand, there are places on the internet where everything spiritual, supernatural or ‘I fucking love science’ is met with open arms. The latter do not interest me, so why don’t I go to the former? Why don’t all people who really want to have serious discussions go to the appropriate places (stackexchange for example)?

I think because /sci/ is the place where lazy unique snowflakes, the fucking science lovers, fedora spergers, /pol/ smokers, /x/-tra’s and actual students come together to fight it out and have a laugh. In my daily live I frequently get frustrated over the fact that people equate their own theories about science and math while having done no serious studies in them what so ever with the effort I put in on a daily basis. But I don’t want to confront them because they are usually my friends and who cares. So it feels pretty good to call out someone on /sci/ who obviously hasn’t done his homework on his ‘new theory’. If they don’t like it, then they can go to a spiritual-friendly or crack-pottery site. But they will keep coming and we will keep laughing. In between, we can all learn something sometimes.

>>6585227
>irrational numbers ONLY are convergent in the REALS

Irrationals only exist in the reals (and it's supersets), is there any other context that you'd talk about them in?

>>6579420

If you want to foster a home for intellectuals you need a general homework thread. Even though I'm out of college I'd still be pro-general-homework threads.

/vg/ has done this for years so I'm not sure why sci could never figure it out.