/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8165037

>>8165041

>>8165043

>>8165046

>>8165049

>>8165051

>>8165054

>>8165057

>>8165062

>>8165067

>>8165068

>>8165071

>>8165074

>>8165076

>>8165079

>>8165080

>>8165082

>>8165085

and finally, everybody's favorite...

I shamelessly stole them from here if anybody wants to know the context...

http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/158668/nice-scientific-pictures-show-off?page=1&tab=votes#tab-top

might not be as sexy as some of the others but it is really interesting

The statistical graph of Napoleon's failed invasion of Russia.

>>8165054
>>8165051
>>8165049

Source?

>>8165037
>no combinatorics
>trash.jpg

at least the drawing kind of makes it look like "axiom" of choice

>>8165076
what is this

>>8167982
>>8167686

see

>>8165090

>>8168950
jesus christ...

>>8168950
This will make a badass loading screen

>>8168950
I just came literally, I have a problem that if I see good Math problems or Graphics, I ejaculate. Post moar

>>8166311
thats cool.

>>8168920
yeah, i checked the link
it doesn't explain what that tensor field thing is

Good thread

>>8165037

>>8171403
Wildberger has an amazing video on quaternion rotations btw.
If you must, you can convert all the weird rational turns to angles, but there's more to the videos than that

Here's a nice drawing from M.C. Escher. Not pure math though, but mathematicians usually like it

>>8171675
Escher is pleasant as fuck to look at

>>8165085
>>8168950
Sweet

>>8171675

Pardon me, but I'd like to interject. Although it does look like a drawing, This famous image of Escher's, "Relativity", is not actually a "drawing" as-such, but simply one copy of a type of print which is known as a /lithograph/. It is a common and erroneous misconception to refer to Escher's works as drawings. Escher was a printmaker, and as such he did not usually produce singular drawings as his completed works, but rather he produced templates from which it was then possible to print multiple impressions, or prints, in limited editions. For a print, then, the completed work exists as any of a number of "legitimate" copies, legitimate in the sense that they were all prepared by the artist during his working life.

Of course, Escher like any artist would have spent time sketching and perhaps drawing studies for a work to get a feel for it, before committing more precious resources to the execution of the final work. So, perhaps there is some sketch of "Relativity" somewhere. However, such would not be the present final work, which is indeed a type of print, and not a drawing.

Escher's two favorite techniques of printmaking, which totally dominate his life's work - Escher's two weapons of choice are the aforementioned lithograph, and the /woodcut/. It is fitting, then, that he executed one of his most famous works both as a lithograph, which you've already posted, and as a less commonly seen woodcut version, which is reproduced here. It happens that Escher completed both distinct versions around the same time (compare dates).

Due to the nature of his printmaking medium, his subject matter (mathematical art) and even his left-handedness (left handed people are suggested to be more interested in spatial arrangements than color arrangements), Escher was usually content to work in "grayscale", or with only the simplest colors. A watercolor that he did during his student days is atypical.

>>8173769
hey, i actually learned something today by coming here, didn't expect that. thanks for writing this up anon, that's interesting!

>>8165037
It's not a good map without a "here be dragons" somewhere.

>>8165037
i feel like if algebra, topology, and logic are places on the same planet, category theory should be the entire solar system
algebraic geometry might as well just not exist in that universe

>>8165067
I saw this shit on my last dmt trip

>>8174838
You've got it entirely backwards

>>8165067
I dont get it

I want more images like OP. None of the images in this thread are about the landscape of mathematics.

>>8179560
Landscapes of mathematics are really abstract and more often than not, their depictions are highly personal or flat out wrong

>>8181395
Hows about a tree of mathematics?

>>8181512

>>8181549
I like the fact, and proof, that any tree in the graph-theoretic sense can be, given any vertex, regarded as a tree in the data-structure sense branching with that vertex as a root node.

Proof: Pick up the graph at a vertex, and observe the way it hangs. It is a tree.