/mg/ - /mathematics general/

[Anonymous No.11821465]

mathematics general - /mg/
Previously: >>11817715

Writing equations on naked girls' bodies edition

[Anonymous No.11821551]

>>11821330
Ask for help with your homework in >>>/sqt/ you fucking animal.

[Anonymous No.11821808]

I remember my physics teacher once saying that pretty much any physics problem can be modelled with a system of differential equations.
I'm a mathfag with absurdly little knowledge of physics. Does anyone here know how I can learn about this the best way? If anyone knew of a book dealing with this specifically, that would be awesome beyond belief.
Obviously I'll first need to understand a few physics laws, let's say that's a prerequisite and I'll have that covered once I get to the suggested sauces.

[Anonymous No.11821818]

Can /mg/ solve this without looking up the solution?
I can proudly state that I was able to solve this in less than 15 minutes :)
link to video if you give up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJqbHaFqjmI

[Anonymous No.11821965]

How about drawing diagrams on boys' backs?

>>11821808
Start with the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms and see where they take you.

>>11821818
I most likely can't.

[Anonymous No.11821969]

Can some helpful anon check my work here?
Did I do this right?

[Anonymous No.11821983]

>>11821818
I never liked functional equation questions. It's possible I just never got gud at them, but the solution always seems to be "lol just plug in these random specific values and you win". There's no toolbox of stuff (that I can see, anyway) like there is for inequality questions or combinatorial questions or number theory questions or anything like that, it always just feels like it boils down to flinging shit at the wall and hoping you were clever or lucky.

[Anonymous No.11822028]

>>11821808
It's honestly more accurate to say that the evolution of most systems can be modelled as a stochastic delay differential equation, and in the case of physics the terms "stochastic" and "delay" disappear.
Also, a lot of the optimization problems that show up in physics can be transformed into differential equations.

[Anonymous No.11822033]

[Anonymous No.11822070]

>>11821818
From what I can see this only holds true for f(x)=2x and f(x)=0 but how would you go about showing / proving that?

[Anonymous No.11822109]

>>11822070
>this only holds true for f(x)=2x and f(x)=0
False. Also I won't post the solution here because I don't want to ruin it to others. I linked the video with the solution if you give up so quickly.

[Anonymous No.11822130]

>>11822033
Why do we have category theory, again?

[Anonymous No.11822146]

>>11822130
hate*

[Anonymous No.11822149]

>>11821808
>I remember my physics teacher once saying that pretty much any physics problem can be modelled with a system of differential equations.
Because pretty much *any* continuous problem is a differential equation or boils down to one, okay, this might be a slight exaggeration but since even things like energy minimisation are ultimately PDEs it is unsurprising to find them in many places.

> If anyone knew of a book dealing with this specifically, that would be awesome beyond belief.
I really do not get what you are asking for. The question "why do PDEs model reality will most likely be answered by looking at actual physics textbooks.

[Anonymous No.11822150]

>>11822149
>this might be a slight exaggeration
Is it though?

[Anonymous No.11822158]

>>11822150
>Is it though?
I couldn't immediately think if a way to embed things like a linear system as a PDE.

[Anonymous No.11822190]

>>11822130
Who told you we did?

[Anonymous No.11822212]

What are the differences between Itô calculus and Malliavin calculus?

[Anonymous No.11822330]

Daily reminder that you must be over 24 to post on /mg/.

[Anonymous No.11822336]

>>11822033
I see 5 fields of math and a lot of autistic tranny fuel in this pic

[Anonymous No.11822352]

>>11822330
What if I'm 23 mod 24?

[Anonymous No.11822366]

could someone tell me a good textbook for introduction to number theory for someone who only has a HS level understanding of math?

[Anonymous No.11822373]

>>11822366

[Anonymous No.11822383]

>>11821808
You can even model computation with differential equations..

[Anonymous No.11822390]

>>11822366
https://www.amazon.com/Number-Theory-Dover-Books-Mathematics/dp/0486682528/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Dover+Number+THeory&qid=1592759218&sr=8-1

[Anonymous No.11822400]

>>11822352
I hope you are 47.

[Anonymous No.11822403]

>>11822373
Yeah that's good for an introduction.

[Anonymous No.11822411]

>>11822403
Yeah.

[Anonymous No.11822427]

>>11822390
cheers lad

[Anonymous No.11822447]

>>11822373
Kek

[Anonymous No.11822483]

>>11822411
I want to protect this smile.

[Anonymous No.11822538]

>>11821965
>>11822028
>>11822149
>>11822383
thanks for the answers!

>>11822028
>optimization problems that show up in physics
You mean more 'practical' stuff like >>11822149 with energy minimization, or does it come op in theoretical physics somehow too?
>>11822383
not sure what you mean, could you please elaborate?

[Anonymous No.11822553]

>>11822538
You are welcome, my friend.

[Anonymous No.11822594]

>>11822411
Is there a better math textbook author?

[Anonymous No.11822601]

>>11821818
ten minutes

[Anonymous No.11822620]

>>11822594
I don't think there's a single better living mathematician.

[Anonymous No.11822709]

[Anonymous No.11822772]

>>11822709
Don't know what exercise 1-4 are, but ex 5 sure as hell won't last as long as crosswords.

[Anonymous No.11822813]

>>11822538
>You mean more 'practical' stuff like >>11822149 # with energy minimization, or does it come op in theoretical physics somehow too?
I mean in general. You have that the solution to something is a critical point of a Lagrangian functiomal(which means it's a local minima or maxima) and you pass to an Euler-Lagrange differential equation.
For example, normal lagrangians in classical mechanics.

[Anonymous No.11822966]

I have calculated that the next post will be >>11822966

[Anonymous No.11822983]

>>11822594
Yes, his books are always very elegantly written but he is too succinct desu. Fulton and Milnor are a lot more engaging for example, especially if you read to learn a topic

[Anonymous No.11822984]

>>11822966
Nice.

[Anonymous No.11822990]

>>11822966
neato

[Anonymous No.11823083]

Why are CS majors so fucking dumb?
>>11821019

[Anonymous No.11823250]

>>11822813
I see, right, ok.

[Anonymous No.11823258]

>>11823083
Underdeveloped and poorly integrated neural circuitry that deals with associative and visual-spatial reasoning. Overdeveloped logical-symbolic reasoning. Severe unproductive maladaptive autism.

[Anonymous No.11823447]

>>11821808

nerve gas

[Anonymous No.11823471]

>>11822772
Maybe not crosswords, but I can envision problems like this or word problems (in the group theory sense) having crossover appeal similar to sudoku

[Anonymous No.11823478]

>>11823471
Actually that was retarded of me to expect crossover appeal of matrix multiplication, but I stand by word problems

[Anonymous No.11823508]

How do I get of out of naïve set theory and into axiomatic set theory?

[Anonymous No.11823532]

>>11822390
>>11822427
Andrews is good, but I would hardly call it HS level. Elementary Number Theory by Jones & Jones is easier and more beginner friendly, but even that get's a little too hairy for HS level.
Honestly, I'd say take a detour and work through a textbook on proofs and such before going into number theory.

[Anonymous No.11823535]

Is there a dictionary for mathematical jargon? When I'm studying Calculus 1, I constantly find myself having to look up what terms like vertex, secant line, etc, mean.

[Anonymous No.11823544]

>>11823535
There literally is

[Anonymous No.11823545]

Tfw can't figure out if I lack mathematical maturity or if I'm just stupid

[Anonymous No.11823548]

>>11823545
there is a significantly higher probability that you are stupid, desu

[Anonymous No.11823571]

>>11823532
I mean, 'number theory' and 'high school' are basically mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.11823594]

>>11823571
Yeah that's why I suggested a detour. That said, when he finally swings back around to number theory, andrews is still going to be difficult.

[Anonymous No.11823621]

how many IMO's have you solved, /mg/?

[Anonymous No.11823638]

>>11823508
What do you mean by naive?
The first few sections of Set Theory and the Continuum Problem by Raymond Smullyan were a pretty accessible introduction to axiomatic set theory for me

[Anonymous No.11823652]

>look my country in the IMO
>all teams had at least two kids with asian surnames though they're not even 1 ppm of the population

[Anonymous No.11823663]

>>11823652
>be Canadian
>my country's IMO team is China 2 Electric Boogaloo

[Anonymous No.11823664]

>>11823548
That's what I figured but man that sucks

[Anonymous No.11823674]

>>11823664
You will never know until you consistently fail after making a good effort. Im not able to pass judgement on you nor is anyone else. Just wanted to offer an honest opinion because most you will speak with will lie to you about these things

[Anonymous No.11823686]

>>11823674
I understand, I just wasted so much time already because of illness. It sucks having to try, burdened by shame, with the future so damn uncertain.

[Anonymous No.11823689]

>>11823447
I would guess a heatstroke

[Anonymous No.11823692]

>>11823686
Very few people are guaranteed success, we all have to take dangerous risks at some point anon. I can tell you that failing to measure up as a mathematician is not the worst thing that can still happen to you. Certainly takes more patience and bravery than many other wastes of time you could indulge.

[Anonymous No.11823719]

>>11823508
Build your set theory with axiom of separation.

[Anonymous No.11823732]

Worst part of being a brainlet is not having a single clue of where to start with a problem, it defeats you at a glance like a basilisk

[Anonymous No.11823735]

>>11821465
so, I got a position as an associate prof. in math at some uni. I'll start in two or three monts. How bad should be my future lectures? What are the worst thing I could (and thus should) do to ensure only the best students make it to the top?

[Anonymous No.11823737]

>>11823735
With English like that I really hope it wasn't an American uni that hired you

[Anonymous No.11823751]

>>11823732
True.
Personally once in a while I somewhat lose my train of thought. But drawing blanks is the worst feeling

[Anonymous No.11823758]

>>11823737
It is not, of course. You have to be masochist to even apply in muttland.

[Anonymous No.11823772]

Is this a double reflection or not?
Is the Fury into men or women?

[Anonymous No.11823781]

>>11823758
America has the best institutions in the world.

[Anonymous No.11823789]

>>11823638
>Set Theory and the Continuum Problem
This looks good.
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11823807]

>>11823692
I guess it's true, it's just I always did well in school (rather bad schools tho) and this is just terrifying. I'll try to keep applying myself and see what happens I guess.

[Anonymous No.11823843]

>>11823751

The problem is saying "you have to be this tall to enter this ride" and you're He Pingping

[Anonymous No.11823848]

>>11823781
well meme’d

[Anonymous No.11823852]

>>11823735
>What are the worst thing I could do
Have you considered walking up to the blackboard with a copy of the class's book and just manually writing down all the definitions, theorems and proofs in it in sequential order, adding literally no explanations, skipping all the examples, solving no exercises, and giving the shittiest answers possible to student questions?

[Anonymous No.11823888]

How do I know if I am smart enough to study mathematics? If I choose to study mathematics but it turns out to be too difficult, I can not switch to computer science. You need a 3.9GPA+ to switch to CS from math because CS is a popular program. What does /sci/ think of applied mathematics? Is mathematics really as difficult as it is made out to be?

[Anonymous No.11823921]

>>11823888
What if I told you that CS is applied mathematics?

[Anonymous No.11823956]

I want to start learning measure theory (as a graduate student).
Where should I start? What is the best book or it is better to follow some lecture videos?

[Anonymous No.11823966]

what what some things I should be able to solve?

[Anonymous No.11823969]

>>11823789
Yw
If you don't like Smullyan you might give
>Kunen - Set Theory
a try, it's sort of the canonical book to learn how forcing works.

[Anonymous No.11823971]

>>11823969
I've never been let down by Dover, but I'll look into this one too.

[Anonymous No.11823975]

>>11823956
I have 'Measure and Integral' by Wheeden and Zygmund and it's pretty good for building everything up from scratch.

Axler also has a free introductory book on his website that might be of interest.

[Anonymous No.11823990]

>>11823663
>Qi Qi, do you love me?
>Are you riding?
>Say you'll never ever leave from beside me

[Anonymous No.11823995]

>>11823921
I would tell you that they will still never be welcome in this thread since we don’t discuss applied math here (though you would be wrong CS is not and never will be math, even applied math).

[Anonymous No.11823997]

>>11823956
I learned measure theory from a real analysis course using the book
>Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications
by Gerald Folland. May be worth a look.

[Anonymous No.11824017]

Why is France so bad at high-school level?


https://www.imo-official.org/country_team_r.aspx?code=FRA

[Anonymous No.11824031]

>>11823997
How was Folland's book and are you able to compare it with Royden and Rudin's grad level Real Analysis books? I've heard bad things about the latter and am considering using the former to learn Measure Theory

[Anonymous No.11824044]

>>11823956
Cohn's Measure Theory

[Anonymous No.11824053]

let's play guess who

[Anonymous No.11824059]

>>11824053
perelman?

[Anonymous No.11824060]

>>11824053
Georg Cantor

[Anonymous No.11824069]

>>11824059

yes

[Anonymous No.11824072]

>>11824069
What's he up to these days?

[Anonymous No.11824079]

>>11824069
Did he actually get mad because of the chinaman and never touch math again?

[Anonymous No.11824086]

we won't know from him again since he's unabomber pilled and probably doesn't even own a computer

[Anonymous No.11824110]

>>11824086
Honestly based.
After reading Heidegger's 'The Question About Technology', I've realized that technology is a net negative and will lead to our downfall.

[Anonymous No.11824124]

>>11824110
read Robert Ayres

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ayres_(scientist)

[Anonymous No.11824339]

>>11823735
You should give very understandable, well though out lectures about very advanced topics.

Making lectures bad doesn't help the best students, they will just stop showing up.

[Anonymous No.11824364]

>>11823852
interesting, it would look like several courses I attended during my uni time. What do you think if I also dismiss half of the questions with a exasperated sigh and a vague comment on the triviality of it making us losing time?

>>11824339
but anon, this would allow students to actually enjoy the lectures and possibly get interested in maths. How can we keep our field pure if I do this?

[Anonymous No.11824370]

>>11824364
you sound like a passive aggressive little faggot I hope you get AIDS

[Anonymous No.11824374]

>>11824370
I love you too, engineer-kun.

[Anonymous No.11824378]

>>11824374
physics, I would sooner join the marines or a BLM rally than go into engineering

[Anonymous No.11824404]

So I'm in the middle of transferring into a degree in Mathematics. I really enjoy it, but I'm not 100% sure if I'm good enough at being able to understand maths. Has anyone got any suggestions to help improve my mindset? Books? Philosophy? Something else?

[Anonymous No.11824410]

>>11824378
yeah right, sucking cocks can be done anywhere if you try hard enough

[Anonymous No.11824412]

>>11823735
>>11824364
Why do you want Math to be pure? Also, if you teach like shit the students will not take your course anyway.

[Anonymous No.11824414]

>>11824410
See what I mean about being a little faggot? The first place your mind goes to is sucking off men.

[Anonymous No.11824416]

>>11824414
Kekel I hope he doesn't abuse his job as an Ass Prof. and force some students to suck his dick for grades. That would be insane even by /mg/ standard.

[Anonymous No.11824445]

>>11824412
I am just trying to give back this knowledge the way it was taught to me.

>>11824414
Yet I will not let you suck mine. Stop insisting.

>>11824416
If I manage to do this, I'll post pic on /b/. I feel that this board does not reward creative thinking.

[Anonymous No.11824463]

>>11824414
Why are all the trannies and faggots so horny in these threads nowadays?

[Anonymous No.11824468]

>>11824463
Lack of a father figure growing up.

[Anonymous No.11824470]

>>11824468
But they weren't so bad a few months ago. Is the heat causing them to be in heat?

[Anonymous No.11824492]

>>11824463
>>11824470
summertime yes, not as many chances to throw themselves at/suck off closeted grad students and professors. At home with parents who hate them

[Anonymous No.11824507]

>>11824492
dude you're obsessed, go suck your own dick if you miss it so much

[Anonymous No.11824511]

>>11824364
>How can we keep our field pure if I do this?
What does pure even mean?
And why is it desirable?

[Anonymous No.11824512]

>>11824507
dilate

[Anonymous No.11824618]

>>11822366
http://www.math.brown.edu/~jhs/frint.html

>>11823772
Men.

[Anonymous No.11824626]

>>11824618
>Men.
But Christine Chandler is a straight women who is into women.

[Anonymous No.11824631]

>>11824511
pure means keeping only autistic monomaniac people learning the thing by themselves.
See also >>11824167

[Anonymous No.11824653]

>>11824631
>learning the thing by themselves.
What is "pure" about that?

[Anonymous No.11824717]

What are some /mg/ glasses?

[Anonymous No.11824764]

>>11821983
There is in fact a toolbox of approaches. Check out AMSP's book on the topic if interested.

[Anonymous No.11824823]

>>11823772
how the fuck are retards like this capable of doing math phds

[Anonymous No.11824833]

>>11824823
>category theory
>math

[Anonymous No.11824911]

Reposting poll from previous thread.
https://strawpoll.com/cj4y5xz4r

[Anonymous No.11824926]

>>11824031
Folland's book moves extremely fast like the Rudin from an earlier class does (Real and Complex Analysis), but feels less dry, though maybe that's just the expanded amount of material. Our Folland class was a flipped classroom, meaning we were supposed to read chapters in advance and then discuss/problem-solve in class, which was a good way to do it, I don't know how hard I would have found it without this setup

[Anonymous No.11824929]

>>11824823
His twitter is full of wojacks and doomer gal and whatnot, I wonder if he lurks here. I wonder if he lurks RIGHT IN THIS THREAD

[Anonymous No.11824937]

>>11824929
>full of wojacks and doomer gal
I hope she doesn't lurk this thread.

[Anonymous No.11824958]

>>11824937
>she

[Anonymous No.11824960]

Anyone know who this is?

[Anonymous No.11824962]

>>11824960
me

[Anonymous No.11824970]

>>11824960
Some dude

[Anonymous No.11824977]

>>11821808
Just pick up Goldstein (any edition earlier than the third) and go for it. Or if you have absolutely zero physical knowledge, try Morin as a gentler introduction. I use that when teaching Lagrangians to my first years.

[Anonymous No.11824991]

friends can you give me examples of actions of Z/6Z on Z/5Z x Z/5Z?

[Anonymous No.11824995]

>>11824991
The trivial action.

[Anonymous No.11824996]

>>11824991
id

[Anonymous No.11824999]

>>11824995
>>11824996
anything else?

[Anonymous No.11825005]

>>11824999
you can swap coordinates

[Anonymous No.11825011]

>>11825005
yeah, that is one but i wonder if there is something that would take all 6 elements to get back to the starting point

[Anonymous No.11825015]

>>11825011
like if you replace Z/6Z with Z/4Z then you get (a, b) -> (b, -a) -> (-a, -b) -> (-b, a) -> (a, b)

[Anonymous No.11825038]

>>11824977
>Goldstein
you mean the Classical Mechanics textbook, right?
Everyone seems to be suggesting mechanics, guess it's really the starter to physics.

[Anonymous No.11825041]

>>11825015
the automorphism (a,b) -> (b-a,2b-3a) has order 6

[Anonymous No.11825044]

>>11824991
don't have a specific answer but will point out you're looking for order-6 matrices in GL2(F_5)

[Anonymous No.11825049]

I went full autism mode with the Haruhi Problem Wikipedia debacle. Enjoy, let me know if I need to fix anything.

[Anonymous No.11825050]

>>11825041
thanks, i tried similar things but not this one

>>11825044
i tried but i somehow missed that one

thanks friends

[Anonymous No.11825055]

>>11825049
you need to fix your life

[Anonymous No.11825056]

>>11825055
No /dab/

[Anonymous No.11825060]

If you can't solve this you need to go back to geometry school

[Anonymous No.11825064]

>>11821808
I know you say you don't know physics, but recall literally any physics high school formula. if it's ratio then it's actually a differential equation in disguise. if it's product then it's actually an integral equation in disguise.

[Anonymous No.11825067]

>>11825049
Nice job honestly. It pisses me off how they are trying to politicize math.

[Anonymous No.11825069]

>>11825060
Wasn't this posted as a homework help post here a couple days ago lol

[Anonymous No.11825098]

>>11825069
it's not homework help, but I admit it's a bit of a troll in some respect

[Anonymous No.11825109]

>>11824404

how old are you relative to 24?

[Anonymous No.11825117]

>>11825049
Good work!
>>11825055
You need to end yours.

[Anonymous No.11825118]

>>11823843
What a curious way to put it

[Anonymous No.11825126]

>>11825049
where did you post it?

[Anonymous No.11825131]

>>11825126
/his/ /sci/ and /pol/ in that order. Don't judge me for the latter I just wasted a lot of time on it so I'm a little desperate

[Anonymous No.11825145]

>>11825131
>Don't judge me for the latter
aw relax, most of us browse /pol/ too

[Anonymous No.11825162]

>>11825131
>so I'm a little desperate
Desperate for what? You're gonna have a very hard time farming outrage with this even on a boring day considering all she did was delete a link and then put it back a day later. And /pol/ is occupied with other things right now anyway.

[Anonymous No.11825174]

>>11825049
I don't quite get the problem, she removed the link to the archive? And the articles linked don't show the proof?

[Anonymous No.11825175]

>>11825145
>most of us browse /pol/ too
Oh that's why the threads always devolve into /pol/shit. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11825180]

>>11825145
I don't except for a happening once in a while.

[Anonymous No.11825181]

>>11825174
She removed a primary source purely because it came from le ebil 4chan. This violates wikipedia's own policies. She's politicizing mathematics dude.

>>11825162
>Desperate for what
I just don't want my effort to be wasted you know? I'm sure you've felt this way before
>all she did was delete a link and then put it back a day later
I made this an hour ago so you are incorrect.

[Anonymous No.11825183]

If you are able to solve something of the caliber of the Haruhi's problem, would you post it on /sci/?

[Anonymous No.11825189]

>>11825174
The original article (which you can view if you care to by going back a month in the history) cited "In September 2011, an anonymous poster on the Science & Math ("/sci/") board of 4chan proved that the smallest superpermutation on n symbols (n ≥ 2) has at least length n! + (n−1)! + (n−2)! + n − 3." with a direct link to the archived 4chan post.
She moved the 4chan post down into the links section and replaced that citation with a news article that was already used elsewhere in the page. That's it.

[Anonymous No.11825190]

>>11825183
Absolutely, and I'd use a really vulgar name like "nigger faggotnuts" or something so that whoever cites me has to put that in their paper

[Anonymous No.11825192]

>>11825183
Yes. And I probably will in the future.

[Anonymous No.11825193]

>>11825181
>>11825189
Does she that's why it is or are you just assuming?
Looking at the revision history, she says you can put the link to the archived in External Links which doesn't seem bad.
You need articles to verify this stuff because otherwise random viXra shit posted here could get cited as a reference. Most people won't be able to follow the proof and check for themselves

[Anonymous No.11825194]

>>11825193
Read the fucking tweet in the infographic dude

[Anonymous No.11825198]

>>11825183
No. I'm a PhD student, more publications are kind of nice to have at the moment. If I have something publishable I'm gonna put my name on it.

If I were in a position where I didn't have to care about padding my CV I don't see why I wouldn't though. Publishing things formally is a pain in the dick, I'd never do it ever if I didn't have to.

[Anonymous No.11825203]

>>11825175
Oh fuck off, I can't go a day in academia or the scientific community without hearing libshit. Let me have my unironic safe space.

[Anonymous No.11825206]

>>11825194
I did. Read the rest of my post. You can't just link here and expect it to be a citation.

[Anonymous No.11825211]

>>11825206
If it has been confirmed by others why would it not be? And regardless, it's extremely obvious that her decision was politically motivated

[Anonymous No.11825214]

>>11825183
Most likely yes. However, this remains unsolved, because I will never solve anything anyway.

[Anonymous No.11825219]

>>11825214
>unsolved
Undecided

[Anonymous No.11825222]

>>11824079
rumor has it he has proven the equivalent to Thurston's geometrization conjecture for 4-manifolds, but will not publish it

[Anonymous No.11825225]

>>11825214
Get someone young to solve a potion of youth for you so you can be 23 again and have value

[Anonymous No.11825227]

>>11825222
I hope he at least keeps his draft somewhere and they will publish it later when he passes away.
Unless he burns it out of spite.

[Anonymous No.11825231]

>>11825211
I don't deny she probably dislikes the site, but I'm being charitable here. She didn't discredit 4chan, or remove all references to the site, or even remove the archive link. It just got moved to External Links. The confirmations came first.

[Anonymous No.11825232]

>>11825206
Why not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
Citations 44 and 221 are tweets. Why is Twitter an acceptable source but not 4chan?

[Anonymous No.11825236]

>>11825225
Literally why would I do that? I can get potion of forgetfulness and morning nausea from the petrol station close to my home.

[Anonymous No.11825239]

>>11825227
he looks and sounds like a burner

[Anonymous No.11825240]

>>11825236
You could also have had a potion of cum if you had joined my harem, but you're great at making mistakes it seems.

[Anonymous No.11825244]

>>11825239
Well I suspect as much. Thank you chinaman for ruining everything nice.

[Anonymous No.11825246]

>>11825231
>I'm being charitable here
I can appreciate you trying to be reasonable in all this but as far as I'm concerned this is a trend I cannot tolerate. I've always told people not to use wikipedia pages for controversial topics but not apparently even non-controversial topics are at risk. For example, according to wikipedia the caucasian race doesn't exist and they cite this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng0603-119.pdf
Which is written by a fucking ethicist and in content is basically whinging about people being offended. It's first citation is from the new york fucking times.

[Anonymous No.11825251]

>>11825240
I'll have that when I go back to my country.

[Anonymous No.11825255]

>>11825232
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez
citations 94, 104, 184 are tweets, citation 107 is Instagram

[Anonymous No.11825266]

>>11825232
I'm probably an idiot but I see like 3 tweets, all from the man himself. Which is why they are cited. The tweets are identified, verified, as coming from Donald Trump. They are just quoting what he said.

Meanwhile the 4chan thing is from an anonymous poster and it's a mathematical proof. First part is dodgy, second part means wiki can't put it there by itself because it would be basically original research. Same with the groyper thing really, that part is up the journalists.

>>11825246
Controversial stuff on wiki does suck dick but I'm just not quite convinced this is all that.

[Anonymous No.11825312]

>>11825266
>They are just quoting what he said.
This is the part that matters, not the identified and verified.
You're allowed to cite anything at all if you're just quoting it, or indicating it exists. Saying "anon proved" is not quoting, it's saying the contents of the post are correct. You can't claim something is true without appealing to a verification on Wikipedia. It's explicitly against Wikipedia policy to make any of your own judgements (not saying it always works like that at all, but in theory it should).

It's a stupid petty little tweak that was likely just motivated by not liking 4chan, but it's technically not wrong either.
It's also totally irrelevant since nothing was removed from the article. Trying "desperately" to stir up outrage over a shifted footnote reeks of "I'm 14 and I found /pol/ last month fuck the libs"

[Anonymous No.11825336]

>>11825312
>"I'm 14 and I found /pol/ last month fuck the libs"
You're confusing /pol/ with r/t_d.

[Anonymous No.11825356]

>>11825312
What about "anon gave a proof [4chan] which was verified by the community ['respectable' source]"? Giving a proof does not mean giving a correct proof.

[Anonymous No.11825361]

>>11825312
>Saying "anon proved" is not quoting, it's saying the contents of the post are correct.
That's part of what I was trying to say, yeah.

[Anonymous No.11825383]

>>11825183

Yeah 100%. Also all the posts containing pieces of the proof would have loli porn as the pic related.

[Anonymous No.11825395]

>>11825183
No
I'd post it on /x/

[Anonymous No.11825405]

>>11825336
Not him but both have a lot of zoomers, and some really clueless boomers.
>>11825356
I thought about something like that. It doesn't sound like it would break any rules or anything.

[Anonymous No.11825412]

>>11825356
>Giving a proof does not mean giving a correct proof
Not to a mathematician, but the woman you're trying to pick a fight with is not a mathematician and like the rest of the general public probably does not draw a distinction between a "proof" and a "correct proof".

What's the point in trying to torture the grammar so the citation can go back in that exact character slot anyway? The link is still there, and the page is character-for-character the same, just in a marginally different order. Who gives a fuck?

[Anonymous No.11825417]

It is a well known fact that if over [math]\mathbb C[/math], [math]F(x,y,z)=ax^2+bxy+cy^2+dxy+exz+fz^2[/math] is a general conic, and [eqn]A=\begin{bmatrix}
a & b/2 & d/2 \\
b/2 & c & e/2 \\
d/2 & e/2 & f
\end{bmatrix}[/eqn]its associated matrix, then [math]F[/math] is irreducible if and only if [math]\det A\neq 0[/math].

However, I haven't seen, nor can I find a proof of this fact. I feel my attempt at it invokes too much machinery, and I'm looking to see if there's a simpler proof.

What I would do is - given that [math]A[/math] is symmetric, then it is diagonalizable. Changing to diagonal coordinates, then the conic can be written as [math]Ax^2+By^2+Cz^2[/math]. This is irreducible if and only if all three coefficients are non-zero, since we are in an algebraically closed field, and the latter is then equivalent to its matrix having determinant non-zero, proving the result.

[Anonymous No.11825441]

hi fa/g/ here, I have a problem
how do I find the value of N in N^N == K for any given K?

[Anonymous No.11825448]

>>11821818
20 minutes more or less.

[Anonymous No.11825452]

>>11825441
Newton's method

[Anonymous No.11825453]

>>11825441
k = e^W(log(N))
see Lambert function

[Anonymous No.11825454]

>>11825441
N = e^W(log(k))

see Lambert function

[Anonymous No.11825455]

>>11825452
the problem with this naive approximation is that K is extremely large, i.e. its 2^1_000_000

[Anonymous No.11825457]

>>11825455
So is your butt

[Anonymous No.11825459]

>>11825417
Can you make some argument about the nullspace of A being nontrivial (i.e. containing a line) iff A is singular? That feels fairly geometric and low-tech, but I don't remember enough projective geometry to remember if that will work.

[Anonymous No.11825465]

>>11825455
take logs first then
Solving Nlog(N) = 1000000 to reasonable accuracy is not beyond the reach of a gameboy

[Anonymous No.11825475]

Are the generators for Z/nZ always given by the factors from φ(n)?

[Anonymous No.11825477]

Is it true that [math]\sum a_i = \sum a_i = \sum b_i[/math] and [math]\prod a_i = \sum a_i = \prod b_i[/math] iff [math]\{a_i\} = \{b_i\}[/math]? If so, can someone provide a proof?

[Anonymous No.11825485]

Is it true that [math]\sum a_i = \sum b_i[/math] and [math]\prod a_i = \prod b_i[/math] iff [math]\{a_i\} = \{b_i\}[/math]? If so, can someone provide a proof?

[Anonymous No.11825491]

>>11823594
yeah i asked because i'd read excursions in number theory by ogilvy and found a lot of the concepts interesting but without fully understanding them, do you know any good introductions for proofs so i can move onto the other books about number theory?

[Anonymous No.11825493]

>>11825477
>Is it true that ∑ai=∑ai
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11825494]

>>11825493
Beat you to it, brainlet. :^)

[Anonymous No.11825497]

>>11825475
No, not at all. n-1 is always coprime to n, but it squares to 1 mod n. What you want is called a "primitive root modulo n", and finding an algorithm to generate one for arbitrary n that doesn't suck shit is still an open problem.

>>11825485
-1+0+1 = -2+0+2
(-1)*0*1 = (-2)*0*2

[Anonymous No.11825498]

>>11825485
No. Consider (0,0,0) and (0,1,-1).

[Anonymous No.11825499]

>>11825485
Take {0, 3} and {1, 2} for the sums and {0, 1} and {0, 2} for the products.

[Anonymous No.11825502]

>>11825497
>>11825498
>>11825499
>14 seconds apart
what the fuck bros chill

[Anonymous No.11825503]

>>11825497
>finding an algorithm to generate one for arbitrary n that doesn't suck shit is still an open problem.
Interesting. Are we close at all?

[Anonymous No.11825504]

>>11825485
For a given polynomial [math]f(x)=x^n+t_{n-1}x^{n-1}+...+t_0[/math] with roots [math]\{a_i\}[/math], then [math]\sum a_i=-t_{n-1}[/math] and [math]\prod a_i = (-1)^n t_0[/math]. So any two polynomials with such coefficients give a family of distinct roots by varying the other coefficients, so no.

[Anonymous No.11825506]

>>11825499
>>11825498
>>11825497
>>11825485
This doesn't belong on /mg/

[Anonymous No.11825507]

>>11825491
I'm glad you asked! I really like Book of Proof by Richard Hammack. It's free on his site, but you can also buy a copy. It's fantastic as an introduction to mathematical proofs, logic, and basic set theory without being too difficult.
https://www.people.vcu.edu/~rhammack/BookOfProof/

[Anonymous No.11825508]

>>11825506
you don't belong on this planet tranny
41% yourself

[Anonymous No.11825511]

>>11825497
>>11825498
Sorry, I should have specified that I'm only considering positive numbers.

[Anonymous No.11825512]

>>11825508
Not a tranny and will never be one. Stop projecting.

[Anonymous No.11825513]

>>11825485
>>11825504
to add to that, then it would be true if all the other intermediate sum/products pertaining to the other coefficients of the polynomial were equal

[Anonymous No.11825514]

>>11825507
thanks man

[Anonymous No.11825516]

>>11825506
Maybe...

[Anonymous No.11825531]

>>11825503
>Are we close at all?
Computational efficiency problems don't often work in terms of "close". The usual pattern of development is
>brute force
>terrible algorithm
>sequence of slightly less terrible but still terrible algorithms
>oh shit somebody solved it it's easy now
We're still in the "sequence of slightly less terrible algorithms" phase, AFAIK.

[Anonymous No.11825534]

>>11825508
70%

[Anonymous No.11825538]

>>11825412
>torture the grammar
It isn't torturing the grammar to say "gave a proof" rather than "proved", that's perfectly acceptable grammar and it's nonredundant because the two concepts are different. I think you're reaching by this point. If the general public does not draw a distinction between proof or correct proof, then they probably don't draw a distinction between proved and correctly proved in which case the original sentence would be perfectly fine.

[Anonymous No.11825539]

>>11825512
>Anime poster
>Not a tranny
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.11825543]

What anime does /mg/ watch?
For me, it's non non biyori

[Anonymous No.11825545]

>>11825539
Why would I lie about being a tranny? Trannies are always proud of being trannies.

[Anonymous No.11825547]

>>11825538
>If the general public does not draw a distinction between proof or correct proof, then they probably don't draw a distinction between proved and correctly proved
This is exactly the point. The general public thinks proof is the same thing as correct proof, just like they think proved is the same thing as correctly proved.
You still haven't answered why it's so important that you MUST move this footnote back to its rightful throne.

[Anonymous No.11825551]

>>11825543
This doesn't belong on /mg/

[Anonymous No.11825553]

>>11825547
Because it's the most relevant source for the statement that somebody on /sci/ presented a proof of a theorem. Why is it so important that 4chan MUST not be allowed as a citation? Especially when the proof is correct.

[Anonymous No.11825559]

>>11825475
>>11825497
>What you want is called a "primitive root modulo n", and finding an algorithm to generate one for arbitrary n that doesn't suck shit is still an open problem.
that's not true, though
first of all, there is a generator for Z/nZ iff n=2, n=4, or n=p^k or n=2p^k for some odd prime p
secondly, there are [math]\phi(n)[/math] generators, out of all the n residues
literally "pick a random residue and check if it's a primitive root" is a good algorithm, because you have roughly a [math]\frac{p-1}{p}[/math] chance of choosing a primitive root

[Anonymous No.11825562]

>>11825559
sorry fucked up there, should be
"there are [math]\phi(\phi(n))[/math] generators"

[Anonymous No.11825565]

>>11825543
None. They make me anxious.

[Anonymous No.11825572]

>>11825553
>Because it's the most relevant source for the statement that somebody on /sci/ presented a proof of a theorem.
And it's included in the page. The bitch you're seething about agrees with you in the edit log where she said she doesn't mind including it because it's relevant info.
>Why is it so important that 4chan MUST not be allowed as a citation?
I explained why it's not allowed for this purpose two posts ago. And you (or the guy who responded) seemed to agree, since the response was to try and work around the issue by changing the sentence, which you'd only do if you accepted the reasoning in the first place.
>Especially when the proof is correct.
Since it was not published in a refereed place, the only evidence you have that the proof actually is correct is some secondary source that verifies it. Which is why you have to cite a secondary source when you claim it's correct.

[Anonymous No.11825585]

>>11821808
Wait did that lion actually have a seizure?
That's really sad ;_;

[Anonymous No.11825590]

>>11825511
You could permute the set of numbers to create a set that isn't the same but satisfies the condition you outlined
e.g {0,1,2} and {2,1,0}

[Anonymous No.11825600]

>>11825572
Your explanation was that technically speaking it is not sufficient to say that something was proved on 4chan. I do not even accept your reasoning there, but I accept that you believe yourself and so I did suggest working around it to change the sentence, as it is a perfectly grammatical and accurate change which would be very easy to implement. Yet you (?) pushed back even on this change. Why is it so important that the sentence MUST say "proved" instead of "gave a proof"?
>Since it was not published in a refereed place, the only evidence you have that the proof actually is correct is some secondary source that verifies it.
In this case the proof is 100% objectively correct, it has been verified already. What you are saying makes sense as a general principle, but one thing that I find about Wikipedia is their insistence on small stylistic requirements which always seem more invoked at some points of view than others.
Again, why is it so important that the sentence MUST say "proved" instead of "gave a proof"?

[Anonymous No.11825601]

>>11825590
I assumed that since he wrote [math]{a_i} = {b_i}[/math] with braces he intended a set equality, and sets aren't ordered.

[Anonymous No.11825602]

>>11825585
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11825604]

>>11825601
Fuck me, I've been programming so I conflated lists and sets like a retard

[Anonymous No.11825609]

>>11822033
differential topology

[Anonymous No.11825622]

>>11825600
>Again, why is it so important that the sentence MUST say "proved" instead of "gave a proof"?
It's not. There's no particular reason it has to be phrased the way it is. You could rework it into many other forms that would be technically acceptable.
But there's no technical reason to do so, since the article is currently "stable", rule-wise. Nothing needs to be fixed, there's no content missing, and making those changes would add no substance to the page.
You don't give a shit about some little formatting tweak that moved a link two inches down, you just saw a screenshot that a feminist moved it and you see a chance to start some epic libtard drama.

Of course you're right that minor rules are irregularly enforced; I admitted as much in the first post I made. But that's not a reason to seethe when they do get enforced or act like they're somehow not real rules because some instances get missed.

[Anonymous No.11825635]

>>11825622
>But there's no technical reason to do so, since the article is currently "stable", rule-wise.
This is not how Wikipedia works. If you don't like the way a sentence is worded you are completely within your rights to change the wording even if it's grammatically unnecessary. At least this should be the way it works. Unfortunately editorship is becoming more and more restricted and elitist as the years go on.
Keep calling me seething and dramatic while engaging in the exact same argument as you, these words apply to you as well yes?

[Anonymous No.11825646]

>>11825635
I did not say you didn't have the RIGHT to change it, I said you had no REASON to change it. You still haven't provided one, except "it's the most relevant source" which doesn't explain why you want it in THAT spot and not THIS spot.

Going on a crusade over putting a line of text in a different spot because you don't like the opinions of the person who moved it is the exact same kind of political cherrypicking you're bitching about.

[Anonymous No.11825754]

>>11825553
>Why is it so important that 4chan MUST not be allowed as a citation?
It's a retarded Wikipediaism, they always prefer "X says it's true" over the actual thing.
One of the reasons you should disregard the site for almost anything.

[Anonymous No.11825781]

>>11825646
One reason is that primary sources are preferable to secondary sources. Did you not learn this in school?
I really don't understand why you're seething so much about this proposed change. Are you okay? You really don't need to be this upset, is there something else going on with you?

[Anonymous No.11825798]

>>11825145
No way. You should go back and never return.

[Anonymous No.11825799]

>>11825798
This.

[Anonymous No.11825841]

If [math]X[/math] is a variety and [math]L[/math] a line bundle, is its 0th cohomology [math]H^0(X,L)[/math] just the global sections [math]L(X)[/math]?

[Anonymous No.11826149]

>>11825841
Yes.
This isn't a line bundle or variety thing, for literally any sheaf the 0-th cohomology group is the group of sections.

[Anonymous No.11826163]

>>11826149
thanks, I was just doubting myself as to why the author decided to write pic related instead of the simpler [eqn]...\to \bigwedge^p L^{\otimes q+1}(X) \to...[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.11826234]

>>11826163
Using L for sections isn't really standard, tho.
I'm personally used to [math]\Gamma[/math].

[Anonymous No.11826238]

I tried posting a thread about this but some retard turned it into a GET thread: >>11826209

[Anonymous No.11826344]

>>11826238
a get thread on /sci/? Hell yeah!

[Anonymous No.11826375]

>>11826344
>44
I fucking hate you people so much

[Anonymous No.11826384]

>>11826375
>>11826238
check these digits

[Anonymous No.11826399]

>>11822033
>analysis
>neutral

[Anonymous No.11826433]

>>11826399

nothing more soulless than being applied in the financial market

[Anonymous No.11826441]

What are some properties about repeating digits?

[Anonymous No.11826456]

I wish that more textbooks would go through more examples instead of including a thousand exercises that I don't even know how to begin solving. I understand the point of having to do things myself, but if I'm just unable to do most exercises, then I learn fucking nothing. Call me a brainlet, but if the authors bothered to go through some of the exercises first then I'd have a much better time solving the rest of them myself and would learn a lot more from the book. It doesn't help that my lectures are fucking useless.

Is there a functional analysis textbook that takes a more explanatory approach like that?

[Anonymous No.11826477]

>>11826441
let [math]p \neq 2, 5[/math] be prime. Choose any digit d. Then, if you write a proper amount of d's, the number [math]ddd \dots d[/math] will be divisible by p. (you should be able to prove this)

>>11826456
my opinion: books should provide solutions to exercises
sadly i don't have any textbook to recommend

[Anonymous No.11826498]

Can someone help a brainlet understand this problem?

>Let R be a relation on a set X. Let I be the diagonal of X x X. Show that R°I = I°R = R.

[Anonymous No.11826503]

>>11826477
>Book has a solution set
>Publisher/author sells it independently of the textbook
Why is this allowed?

[Anonymous No.11826510]

>>11826503
i've never seen such a thing
this is absolutely ridiculous if real

[Anonymous No.11826562]

>>11826503

This happened to me with the book we used in my Logic course this semester. Apparently the solution set is only intented for professors' eyes and I had to do a bit of digging to get it.

[Anonymous No.11826563]

>>11826477

>(you should be able to prove this)

[eqn]ddd...d = d(10^1 ... 10^q) = dq10[/eqn]

now just make q = p and p | ddd....

[Anonymous No.11826582]

>>11826562
Did you try libgen? If not, next time try libgen.

[Anonymous No.11826590]

>>11826582
It wasn't on libgen, that's why I had to do more searching. It wasn't that difficult to find, though.

[Anonymous No.11826597]

>>11826590
I see. Sucks, but at least you got it eventually.

[Anonymous No.11826638]

>>11826582
What's Libgen?

[Anonymous No.11826674]

>>11826638
A somewhat helpful site when you need a book or some papers. I'd say it's pretty cheap.

[Anonymous No.11826698]

>>11822709
What book is this from?

[Anonymous No.11826704]

>>11826698
Never mind, I found it.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hypergeometric_Functions_My_Love/hYQECAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=solving+these+exercises+is+an+intelligent+way+to+spend+time+in+boresome+meetings&pg=PA33&printsec=frontcover

[Anonymous No.11826810]

>>11826498
what does ° mean in this context?

a relation is a subset of X x X, and the diagonal is the subset consisting of all pairs (x,x). Are you trying to write down reflexivity?

[Anonymous No.11826846]

>>11826810
Relational composition probably

[Anonymous No.11826850]

>>11826810
Here's the actual problem itself. I'm assuming that ° is a binary operator.

[Anonymous No.11826858]

>>11826846
Yah, can't think of anything other than that, the intersection of relations, and the smallest relation containing the union.
Commutativity is trivial in the last two cases, tho.

[Anonymous No.11826988]

>>11826477
Fermat's little theorem right?
>>11826704
"Hypergeometric Functions, My Love" would be a great name for a light novel.

[Anonymous No.11827056]

>>11826988
Write it. The plot is the MC is a math genius and has a harem of cute girls (male).

[Anonymous No.11827070]

>>11826988
[math]\alpha^p \equiv \alpha\ (mod \ p)[/math]

[Anonymous No.11827081]

>>11827070
ye
[math]10^{p-1} - 1 \equiv 0 (mod p)[/math]

[Anonymous No.11827107]

>>11827081
I really like this image.

[Anonymous No.11827831]

>>11823447
>nerve gas
unironically yeah

[Anonymous No.11827944]

>>11822538
>You mean more 'practical' stuff like >>11822149 with energy minimization, or does it come op in theoretical physics somehow too?
What definition of "theoretical physics" do you use?
A pure experimentalist will not extremely often solve partial differential equations

[Anonymous No.11827951]

http://act2020.mit.edu/
Applied category stuff if somebody is interested.

[Anonymous No.11827968]

>>11827951
*insert tranny joke here*

In any case, it looks like you can just subscribe here
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1Kxtc6DOexi4JT-t57Ey9g/videos

As I've said in the last thread or so, this scene have been uploading a lot nice content on the Topos and the HoTTest youtube channel

[Anonymous No.11828007]

>>11827968
There's also something on Zoom, though.

[Anonymous No.11828026]

>>11828007
Yeah they open the talk, stream it and after there's breakout sessions. The talk part goes to youtube as well.

E.g.,

https://youtu.be/RonyrB0kLew?t=1210

[Anonymous No.11828031]

>>11828026
Perhaps. I didn't bother to read it properly.

[Anonymous No.11828035]

>>11828031

[Anonymous No.11828153]

>>11828035
I wish all books could be like that.

[Anonymous No.11828180]

>>11828153
cheeky?

[Anonymous No.11828188]

>>11828180
Entertaining.

[Anonymous No.11828271]

>log in to mg
>no yous
>log out

[Anonymous No.11828281]

>>11828271

[Anonymous No.11828297]

>>11828271

[Anonymous No.11828352]

>>11828297
>no penis
DROPPED

[Anonymous No.11828448]

[math] \iota [/math]
[math] \iota [/math]
[math] \iota [/math]
[math] \iota [/math]
[math] \iota 4[/math]
[math] \iota [/math]

[Anonymous No.11828470]

>>11822373
Would that book be good for someone still doing calculus (lower level math). I kind of want to get a deeper understanding of math to help me do math in the future.

Should I make time to study that book?

[Anonymous No.11828472]

>>11828470
Absolutely. Serre writes deliberately for beginners, his books are very easy to read.

[Anonymous No.11828477]

>>11828472
Alright one more deeper question, How beneficial would studying this stuff and reading up in free time help out during further education. I'm currently still in an early math course doing high school pre calculus and what not

[Anonymous No.11828478]

>>11828472
Also is this the same book?

https://www.math.purdue.edu/~lipman/MA598/Serre-Course%20in%20Arithmetic.pdf

its being hosted online for free by a university

[Anonymous No.11828489]

why do maths if you can instead work on tools that do the maths for you? (eg cas, itps, atps or smt solvers)

[Anonymous No.11828496]

>>11828489
You need to be 18+ to post here.

[Anonymous No.11828515]

>>11828489
Give me a tool that can compute polynomials invariant under an action and I will give you my purity.

[Anonymous No.11828552]

>>11828515
im not claiming that they already exist, anon! your purity is safe for now.

[Anonymous No.11828571]

>>11828552
Well, it was a mutually safe deal as such tools don't exist

[Anonymous No.11828573]

>>11828489
>why do maths if you can instead work on tools that do the maths for you?
Why would I?

[Anonymous No.11828598]

>>11828477
Reading a course in arithmetic by Serre is going to get you nowhere. For starters, you're extremely underprepared. The other guy is trolling you. Secondly, there's plenty of interesting stuff at the precalculus level. You should concentrate on dealing with the fundamentals first, even if it's boring. If you don't know precalculus well, there is very little you can do.

However, this doesn't mean you can't look into things that should still be at your level of understanding. I think one of the more interesting things you can look into is baby-tier analytical geometry. Stuff dealing with conics and low degree polynomials, or perhaps lines and circles stuff.

>Geometry: A Comprehensive Course (Dover Books on Mathematics) by Dan Pedoe
looks nice
>Geometry of Conics (Mathematical World) by A. V. Akopyan, A. A. Zaslavsky
also looks nice

You can get them for free on libgen.

[Anonymous No.11828642]

>>11828598
What are the bare minimum pre-reqs for Serre's arithmetic book?

[Anonymous No.11828660]

You ever just question your IQ constantly? You ever think you'll never finish your degree? Last time I got mine tested was 7 years ago, and it came back at 114. My mathematical abilities have certainly improved, but how much of intelligence is malleable?

[Anonymous No.11828667]

>>11828660
>You ever just question your IQ constantly?
No.
>You ever think you'll never finish your degree?
All the time.

[Anonymous No.11828670]

>>11828660
>You ever just question your IQ constantly?
No.
>You ever think you'll never finish your degree?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11828675]

>>11828642
linear algebra, group, ring and field theory, elementary number theory, real and complex analysis

[Anonymous No.11828685]

>>11828675
>TFW am familiar with all of these
Is it worth picking up?

[Anonymous No.11828688]

>>11828660
>No
>Yes
OP, 114 is really low for math. I doubt you'll be able to finish undergrad. If it doesn't work out you can switch to applied or something.

[Anonymous No.11828691]

>>11828688
I'm not in math. I'm in automation engineering.

[Anonymous No.11828695]

>>11828691
>>11828688
Just finished first year with some pretty good grades. Math was my lowest, but still pretty decent. I'm studying integral and differential calculus to really do well in math in second year.

[Anonymous No.11828701]

>>11828297
Either post the 3dpd or something originally 2d
This is just an abomination

[Anonymous No.11828703]

>>11828685
his book is universally praised, however, the book focuses on results, so if you're more interested in developing the theory in more detail, you might want to look at different sources. That said, it's quite concise, and doesn't say more than he has to, so can be tough to follow, but has a lot of famous results in it.

[Anonymous No.11828710]

>>11828695
>Integral and differential calculus
>Math

[Anonymous No.11828717]

>>11828695
>2nd year
>calculus
>math
AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11828720]

>>11828660
Yes and yes. I got 113 in a Mensa online test (I know that taking it already makes me a brainlet) and I've been pretty devastated ever since
>>11828695
I'm in a somewhat similar position. You don't take diff and int in the first year though? Engineers around here take up to rigurous multivariable in their first year

[Anonymous No.11828728]

>>11828688
IQ is only a measurement of how well you can take an IQ test.

[Anonymous No.11828729]

>>11828720
We took differentiation in first year. Next year is diff and integral calc

>>11828710
>>11828717
Yes, it is a part of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.11828733]

>>11828720
Don't be devastated, dude. It's not like you scored 85. Take one with a psychiatrist like I did to get a more official result. Make sure you're mentally clear before you go in. Hydrated, no hangover or headache, no mental fogginess or tiredness, etc.

[Anonymous No.11828774]

>>11828660
>You ever just question your IQ constantly?
No.
>You ever think you'll never finish your degree?
No. I failed an exam exactly once.

[Anonymous No.11828779]

>>11828728
>IQ is only a measurement of how well you can take an IQ test.
That is demonstrably false. IQ is the best predictor in social science in general.
There are a million things which correlate with it, e.g. income, criminality, etc.

[Anonymous No.11828787]

>>11828733
Will do, after I do some other psych stuff.
I fear I have some mild brain damage from my illnesses, which sucks.
>>11828729
>We took differentiation in first year. Next year is diff and integral calc
That's kind of weird. Could your post your syllabus?

[Anonymous No.11828907]

>>11825049
She is a Tranny
I remember her on tranny gang twitter, twitts about category theory and functional programming.
>Trannies write about incels to avoid association with trannies.

[Anonymous No.11828919]

>>11828685
>>11828703
Serre's books are pleasant to read even if (maybe only if) you already know what he's talking about. Most of the people praising them are doing so from that perspective.
I don't know of anybody else who can match Serre's talent for being able to write EXACTLY what's important and not a single character of anything else.
His Complex Semisimple Lie Algebras is a work of art, even though its only possible use as an introduction would be to tell you what sections of another book to read.

[Anonymous No.11828929]

>>11828907
>she

[Anonymous No.11828935]

>>11828907
>>Trannies write about incels to avoid association with trannies.
They hate themselves for different reasons
Anyways this isn't math

[Anonymous No.11828941]

>>11828935
>Anyways this isn't math
Neither is half of this thread. Your point?

[Anonymous No.11828964]

PLEASE LET THE NEXT THREAD BE NICER!

[Anonymous No.11829001]

>>11828598
Hey neat, I was looking for some baby tier geometry. Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.11829004]

>>11828964
"nice" threads just turn into 200 pages of off-topic circlejerking with anime avatars
all roads lead to cancer

[Anonymous No.11829005]

>>11828964
maybe stop posting animu then, works wonders :^)

[Anonymous No.11829022]

>>11828964
I do hope so.
>>11829004
There was a time I would hate avatarposting but I really don't mind it now. I don't even watch anime. I just think it adds color to the thread

[Anonymous No.11829030]

>>11829004
offtopic circlejerking with anime avatars is better than offtopic angry political discussion

[Anonymous No.11829034]

>>11829030
no
both are equally bad for discussions desu

[Anonymous No.11829039]

>>11829022
>I just think it adds color to the thread
what it adds is 50% of your thread becoming neurotic /r9k/ blogs and cringy motivational posts and fake-gay flirting

[Anonymous No.11829058]

Someone start a new one cmon, it's already 30 past the limit

[Anonymous No.11829062]

>>11829058
do it yourself if you want one so badly homo

[Anonymous No.11829084]

>>11829062
I already did last one

[Anonymous No.11829121]

>>11829106

[Anonymous No.11829173]

>>11828660
>IQ
no
>degree
yes

also bro the average college graduate iq is 115. . .

[Anonymous No.11829331]

>>11828598
okay thank you - im mostly doing this to just help myself out in life