/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8605713
Right Libertarian > Left Authoritarian > Right Authoritarian > Left Libertarian

>>8605713
>Pol here
Just here to remind that it's monday tomorrow polcuck. If you're late to your work tomorrow we will cut your salary and hire some asian from india.

All equally valid, usefulness relies on the situation.

>>8605713
Authoritarian left and libertarian left are very simplified forms of the derivative. Not used often as they have no purpose other than saying "this is a derivative lol". Probably implies that leftists views of either side are simplifications of the real world and not any sensible kind of thought.

Libertarian right is the "useful" form of the derivative. When solving differential equations and maybe even doing implicit differentiation you would work with that form. Could imply that the libertarian right is very pragmatic in their ideology and policy.

Authoritarian right is the most rigorous form of the limit. It is full of meaning but is too hard to work with when it comes to solving problems, which is why the other notations exist. Could mean that the authoritarian right are the most enlightened and have the most knowledge but are their policy is not that useful to society.

That said, that's all bullshit because I am from the libertarian left and obviously we are the smartest so the guy who made that picture is a retarded /pol/fag.

>>8605713
I guess I am alternating between authoritarian and libertarian because whenever I doubt myself on a derivative I always compute limit-definition of derivative on my pc, but on paper I always use [math]\displaystyle \frac{dx}{dt}[/math]

>>8605838
>Not used often as they have no purpose other than saying "this is a derivative lol"

Top left is useful when writing down function compositions in a coherent fashion. Bottom left is useful shorthand if you have to do something like write derivatives and what sets they map from and to between.

>>8605846
>Top left is useful when writing down function compositions in a coherent fashion. Bottom left is useful shorthand if you have to do something like write derivatives and what sets they map from and to between.

They are not useful, they are convenient. They are short, simplistic ways to say "this is a derivative". No more, no less. Sure, as they are short they get used in some contexts but they are non-essential. They are not used to really solve anything, just to convey.

>>8605865
>They are not useful, they are convenient.

Making a proof more readable is useful. Just like using Leibniz notation is useful for showing certain other operations, but it's not necessary. It's useful because it summarizes something, just like other notations do.

>>8605767
it's nigger king luther jr day tomorrow, faggot.

>>8605838
>Authoritarian right is the most rigorous form of the limit. It is full of meaning but is too hard to work with when it comes to solving problems, which is why the other notations exist. Could mean that the authoritarian right are the most enlightened and have the most knowledge but are their policy is not that useful to society.
authoritarian right is literally what you use for computational derivatives, which would make it not only the most applicable, but the most useful nowadays.

>>8605761
>>8605803
>>8605838
>>8605844
>>8605846
>>8605865
>>8605912
>>8605922
Op here. Reminder that I'm literally Stonehenge level math illiterate who can't even intellectually cut a triangle straight out of a piece of construction paper. Could you please plebify it for me what you mean

>>8605938
left is for retards.

>>8605938
Left is for short hand, i.e. for an asnwers. Right is is more or less definitions of a derivative.

>>8605964
>left for retard
depends what you use it for.
When i am calculatin some newtonian physix stuff, im lazy to write, you know.
to write with the dot notation is very elegant and everyone knows what you mean.

Hmm, it seems that Authoritians are mathematicians and Libertarians are physicists. Also it seems that left prefers quick notation where right prefers to do it "right" and show the division-subtraction in the symbolism.

>>8605969
Leibniz not only lets me define my variable of differentiation but also how many times I differentiate it without having to write a limit or writing x'''''''''''''''''''''''''(t)

Only problem is conflated notation

>>8605713
That apparently left libertarianism is superior to all other forms of politics.

>>8605938
It means they're all the same fucking thing. They're all ways to express the idea of the derivative. They're just different notation for the same thing.
1+1=2
1+0+1=2
2=2
3-1=2
You get the idea. I hope.

Do people actually use dot notation? I saw it when first learning calculus, but all my books use superior Leibniz notation

>>8606112
You could also just use a number instead of '''''''''''

>>8606341
Last year I had a course in macroeconomics that used the notation. In that course we mainly focussed on growth rates, so it saves a lot of writing.

>>8605713
top left is childish and inconvenient outside of a certain situation (few multiple derivatives of a variable)
top right is pedantic and you would never use it unless you are actually doing a proof
bottom left is relatively goofy but the easiest solution
bottom right is the most proper and logical format in the vast majority of situations

>>8605713
>Pol here to ask a question. What does this mean for politics?

What it means is that you are seeing if we focus on:

1. The colors
2. The math symbols
3. The labeling of the axes

>>8606618
>top left is childish and inconvenient outside of a certain situation (few multiple derivatives of a variable)

Why is it inconvenient?

>>8605838
Oh god, I feel quite guilty now for replying in a /pol/-bait thread, but this is just too fucking funny.

The picture literally says that all politics is essentially the same and you rampant faggots still desperately look for a way to say:
>B-b-bbutt MY retardedly judgmental point of view is WAY better than this other arbitrary ideology.

I rate 9/11, /pol/.
Can't make this shit up.

That poster apparently has on a daily basis equations with fourth and fifth derivatives in them. He must be working on analytic inter universal techmuller theory

>>8606633
/thread

>>8605938
And guys like you feel to be in the position to call other people subhuman and degenerate topkek

>>8605938
They are the same thing, exactly. The left ones have less detail of the definition, tho. The right ones provide more information, the left ones are simplified, you use them in day-to-day life, the right ones you learn in textbooks, and it is nice to learn, but the authoritarian right one is impractical, although you need to know it, it is fundamental.

>>8606633

This image comes from /pol/, the choice of what definition to put in what place is not arbitrary, people are just saying what the person who made it probably meant. There is a gradual increase in complexity as you go from the left to the right part of the graph, if you can't recognize patterns you're the big retard here

>>8606633
dunning kruger effect: the post

>>8606887
The top right is literally the only DEFINITION. Everything else is different NOTATION, which is a convenient way of referring back to the definition so you don't have to clumsily write it out every single time you invoke it. They mean the same thing and have only stylistic differences, but ambiguity can emerge in different situations (it still pisses me off when people use that x-dot bullshit in the Euler-Lagrange equations)

>let X be a complete metric space
>let X be a metric space in which every Cauchy sequence converges to a well-defined limit
>let X be a set, together with a real-valued function p on X^2, such that p(x,y)=p(y,x), p(x,y)+p(y,z)≥p(x,z), and p(x,y)≥0, with equality holding if and only if x=y, with the additional property that any sequence x:N->X for which, when given any arbitrary ε>0 there exists a suitable natural N such that p(x(n),x(m))<ε for all n,m>N, there also exists an L in X such that for arbitrary ε'>0 there exists some M such that p(x(i),L)<ε' for all i>M
HURR IT GETS MORE COMPLEX AS YOU GO DOWN LEFTARDS BTFO

>>8605713
ok so VERY basically ( since i'm not that good )
x'(t) is basic form, first you see in class, it shows the name of the function, the number of derivation ( one per ' ), and the variable it depends on.
Second feels weird for me, I assume this is equation of a tangent, the limit of h means your going infinitely close to it, you ll compare the difference between x(t) and x(t+h) , divide it by h and you get a slope
x with the dot, is a practical way to right " speed of this function " in any physic equation
dx/dt would be used when solving equations or systems, since you can now considere dx and dt as two different mathematic entities you can move separetely.

I would say that libertarian are physicists, while authoritarian are mathematicians.
The analogy is going to be a bit hard but I can try..
First, mathematicians would be quite rigorous dudes, that work relatively to previous works and try to make a deeper understanding.
Physicist would more likely try to find the rules by observing the world around, and is more linked with reality, since it is the only place that exist to verify your theory.

To sum up
left dudes are lazy, right dudes are quite better, top right buddy is kinda boring and too theoric, while bottom right is more practical..
But I do think the analogy can be very different for someone with a different perception.
Sorry for bad english btw

>>8607784
>hello, fellow /sci/-posters
I want the underageb&s to leave

>>8606739

Holy shit that's clever.

>>8605713
who actually uses faggot dot notation? I have never had any prof even teach this nor seen it in any book.

>>8608864
mechanics

Patrician Tier:
[math]
D_{x}^{n}f(x)
[/math]

>>8608864
Easier than writing dx/dt or x'(t), ya fuck

>>8607705
There is an increase of complexity. The simpler notations contain less information about the operation, the bigger notations contain more information therefore are more complex.

>>8608864
Newton for one.
But it is hands-down the best notation for continuous dynamical systems.

this desu >>8608882

>>8605713
>no Caratheodory definition
why even live?