/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7690175
Looks awfully like physics to me bro

>math porn
>posts tedious calculation

>>7690179

Stop being so facetious

>>7690183
Stop shitposting

>>7690179
Looks awfully like a really complicated thing to me

>>7690185

>shitposts to tell someone to stop shitposting

1 = 0.99999...

>>7690187
It's just equations of motion in a spherical coordinate system, look they even break it down to r/phi/theta

>>7690175
>complicated mess of coordinate-dependent garbage
>"maths" porn

>>7690175
kek OP, it's this kind of apollonian idealization of something as mundane and pedestrian as mathematics that accounts for the low number of successful mathematicians in the UK. Oxford and Cambridge need to stick to philosophy and logic. toppest of keks.

pretty solid b8 desu

>>7690175
How is this math porn? Size doesn't mean everything, even for equations..

>>7690275
>Mathematics
>mundane and pedestrian

There always has to be that one faggot.

>>7690192
>It's just
JUST

>>7690175
Analysis is ugly af

>>7690182
kek

>>7690175

>>7691145
is this real

>>7691145
Hey I wrote that.

>>7691145
but why are you able to do the [math] d\omega = \frac{\partial y}{\partial x} dx [/math]

>>7692564
Definition of the exterior derivative.

1 = 2, my favourite.

>>7690175
This is literally the opposite of beautiful maths

true beauty

>>7692508
>>7692564
>>7692561
Yes it's real although I don´t really see what the "multiply both sides by dx"-part is for. As far as I can tell it would work perfectly fine just by interpreting y(x) as a 0-form. Mind explaining why you did that?
Also a lot of thing go implicitly in there, like what the integral of a differential form even means, how the exterior deravtive is definied, what the integral over a zero-dimensional surface and so on, so you still have to be carefull if you are not familiar with differential forms.

>>7692621
I'm not going to write a book on differential forms just to show why a simple trick works.

>>7692613
>2.31*10^-11 is not ~ 0
Are you a liberal physicist or a retrograd mathematician ??

>>7690175
ugly as shit

>>7692911
Neither he's an engineer.
(source: Inside interesting integrals)

>>7692911
Why would you say ~0? That just disguises the smallness of the error.

>>7692613
Someone please explain

I like

[math] \displaystyle \Delta M_{i}^{-1} = - \partial \sum\limits_{n=1}^{N} D_{i}[n] \bigg[ \sum\limits_{j \in C[i]} F_{ij} [n-1] + Fext_{i} [n^{-1}] \bigg] [/math]

>>7692982
What is it?
I don't recognize the field, which is uncommon.

>>7690189
1==2

>>7692613
that imperfection though.... Gonna need to check that later though, it's almost too good to be true.

>>7691145
>using Stokes' on this
Itäs like shooting a bazooka in a pistol range.

>>7693069
The purpose was to show why separation of variables works, not show how to solve a simple ODE.

>>7692976
>>7693068
that's the infamous borwein integral

>>7690659
found the projecting autist

>>7693119
meant for
>>7690275

>>7693080
Indeed. You don't need Stokes' (which proof is many pages long and is more suitable in higher dimensions) in this. Simply integrate both sides respect to x. Fundamental theorem of calculus says [math]\int y'(x) dx=y+d[/math] and we know that [math]\int x dx=1/2x^2+e[/math] so [math]y=1/2x^2+c[/math]

>>7690189
1+2+3+4+5+6+7...=-1/12.

Ho yeah.

>>7693131
The fundamental theorem does not say that. It only applies to definite integrals. Also using stokes theorem as opposed to the fundamental theorem is really just one extra step.
The fundamental theorem is just stokes theorem with [math]M[/math] a 1-manifold and [math]\omega[/math] as 0-form.

>>7690275
>apollonian idealization
back to your Nietzsche Sparknotes, edgy teen.

enter to see the porn, almost nothing, /sci/ you are the meme

https://projecteuler.net/problem=484

The fact that the arithmetic derivative has a power rule, chain rule, and quotient rule that look pretty much exactly like the derivative from regular calculus is pretty pornographic to me.

>>7692613
t. Don't know how computer store values

>>7690175

The Navier Stokes equations in spherical coordinates are interesting but hardly pornographic.

>>7693626
that's the borwein integral
it was originally believed to be an error with the CAS they were using, but it's legit
check the references here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borwein_integral
one has an explanation

>>7690175

>>7690179
It's nav8er stokes equation, laminar flow of a new Tonia fluid through a pipe... it's a chemical engineering equation

>>7693672
At least it's newtonian... the spherical non newtonian is straight from hell

>math
physics
>porn
an abomination

I saw a lot of these shit,i gonna puke.
but you will get used to these shits eventually.

What's good about math is the same about what's good at porn.Simplicity and great results.

There comes a time in a physicists life when he has to say NO! to high energy particle physics.

[math]e^{i \tau } -1=0[/math]

>>7695061
>[math]e^{τ}-1=0[/math]
>not [math]e^{τ}=e^{0}[/math]

>>7695061
>[math]e^{iτ}-1=0[/math]
>not [math]e^{iτ}=e^{0}[/math]

>>7694124
I3 gives my the shivers. I wouldn't even be able to copy down that equation without making a mistake let alone trying to do a calculation with it. Thank god for computers.

0.9999... = 1

Im mathturbating right now

>>7696109
wait... holy shit.. omg.

>>7692613

In general similar integrals have value
>π/2
whenever the numbers 3, 5, 7… are replaced by positive real numbers such that the sum of their reciprocals is less than 1. In the example above,
>1/3 + 1/5 + … + 1/13 < 1
but
>1/3 + 1/5 + … + 1/15 > 1.

>>7694124
What am I looking at

>>7693604
Are you trolling or do you really not understand why they can be defined that way?

>>7690182
>this
This has to be one of the least gracefully Mathematical things ever

>>7690188
>shitposts to tell someone to stop shitposting

>>7690175
Gelfand Theorem.

>>7696780
a sum

>>7691145
>serperable

>>7696109
[math]e^{ir}=e^{0}[/math]
[math]ln(e^{ir})=ln(e^{0})[/math]
[math]ln(ir)=ln(0)[/math]

>>7698589
thats not how logs work

>>7698346
>shitposts to tell someone to stop shitposting

So how far gone from reality do I have to be to find this sexy?

General polar-form complex number s.

Beautiful.

>>7700894

>>7690175
you should never proof anything before you believe in it

>>7700978

>>7700982

>>7700986

>>7700988

>>7700989

>>7700989
>>7700988

>>7700995

>>7700997

>>7700998

>>7700999

>>7698945
cauchy's theorem is nice too

>>7694124
just say God did it and then go for an extended vacation. one lifetime is not enough for physics.

>>7700894
Oh shit I didn't even kek at first because I didn't understand what it means.

>>7694124
is that describing Bremsstrahlung?

>>7690175
Smooth embedding of Gondola into [math]\mathbb{R}P^2[/math] clearly belongs here.

>>7700878
proof?

>>7702141
left as an exercise for the reader

>>7702135
noice

>>7698589
incorrect
ln(e^ir)=ln(e^0)
ir*ln(e)=o*ln(e)
ir*ln(e)=o

which means either ir=0 or ln(e)=0 , but ln(e)=1 so thaht means that ir=0 ...put that in the starting exuation and you get
e^0=e^0

So whats /sci/ opinion on if this is solvable or not?

>>7703583

And there it is.

>>7695061
>>7696109
what is r?

>>7703674
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau
>Tau (τ = 2π = 6.283...), the name for the ratio constant of a circle's circumference to its radius