[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 72 KB, 820x976, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
No.12802546 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

mathtards BTFO'd hard

 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:42:05 2021 No.12802563 >>12802546I don't understand why should a triangle in the Minkowski plane BTFO me
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:43:41 2021 No.12802567 File: 60 KB, 785x757, 1245676879864321.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] A non-euclidean shape drawn as if it's euclidean. Snore. You're going to need stronger bait. That's not even a real right angle, faggot.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:44:47 2021 No.12802572 >>12802546>nigger doesn't know how to take a dot productkek
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:46:24 2021 No.12802578 File: 149 KB, 1500x1500, fml.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12802546x=0.999....10x=9.9999...10x-x=9.99.... - x9x=9x=10.999..... = 1
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:48:19 2021 No.12802584 File: 299 KB, 600x577, smug2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12802578x=0.9910x=9.9910x-x=9.99 - x9x=9x=10.99 = 1
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:50:03 2021 No.12802593 >>12802584based
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:51:00 2021 No.12802595 >>12802567it's a triangle in $\mathbb{R}^2$ where the Euclidean dot product is replaced by the form $\langle u,v \rangle = u_1v_1 - u_2v_2$. there's nothing wrong with the picture.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:52:26 2021 No.12802602 File: 1.71 MB, 448x487, pepe_wizard.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12802595>Euclidean dot product is replacedSo it's not Euclidean.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:55:57 2021 No.12802617 Square root of 0 may be not 0, but some number which gets squared to 0.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 12:57:02 2021 No.12802621 OP completely BTFO in his own thread. Typical.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 13:11:50 2021 No.12802681 >>12802602of course not, it's a pseudo-Euclidean triangle
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:12:36 2021 No.12802997 >>12802681So? A square is also a pseudo-Euclidean triangle. Why should anyone care about random analogies you make, as if the shared properties somehow negate the unshared properties. That's art, not math.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:21:57 2021 No.12803035 >>12802546hey op what's the sine of the top angle?what about the bottom one? huh? HUH?Yeah tough so OP. Shitposting attempt canceled.$\bf{\thread}$
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:26:43 2021 No.12803047 >>12802997no, a square is most definitely not a psedo-Euclidean trianglehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Euclidean_space>Why should anyone care about random analogies you make, as if the shared properties somehow negate the unshared properties.I have no idea what you mean by this. the analogies are not random.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:29:06 2021 No.12803057 >>12803047What's your point? Pseudo-x is x? Pseudoscience confirmed for real science.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:29:21 2021 No.12803058 File: 288 KB, 680x593, 1613230813843.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >hey op what's the sine of the top angle?>what about the bottom one? huh? HUH?>Yeah tough so OP. Shitposting attempt canceled.>$\bf{\thread}$
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:29:49 2021 No.12803061 File: 73 KB, 601x601, 1517086374508.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12802546>Trying to put i into a real world application.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:32:40 2021 No.12803071 >>12803057pic is fine
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:36:38 2021 No.12803086 >>12803047Of course it's a random analogy. No different than me calling a Euclidean square a Euclidean pseudo-triangle, which is what I meant to write. Who cares? What are you trying to say with your imperfect analogy?
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:45:55 2021 No.12803125 >>12803086>Who cares?all physicists care. the geometry where a vector's length can square to a negative number is the basis for theory of relativity. Pythagorean theorem holds here as well, and it takes one glance at the proof to understand that the analogy is anything but random.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:57:14 2021 No.12803174 >>12803125Which, again, has nothing to do with the fact that pseudo-Euclidean space is a generalization of Euclidean space, not the other way around. Someone says "that's not a triangle" and your reply is "yes, it's a generalized triangle." I'll ask again, do you have a point?
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 14:59:39 2021 No.12803183 >>12803174yes, the point is here >>12803071
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:00:42 2021 No.12803187 File: 54 KB, 719x792, image0-27-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] The hypotenuse is smaller than one of the other sides of the triangle so it's not a real triangle also I like to dress up in women's clothing and deepthroat bananas
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:01:46 2021 No.12803191 >>12803187>it's not a real triangleOf course not, one side is imaginary
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:14:40 2021 No.12803242 File: 652 KB, 917x1065, 28946011-909D-46F8-B932-8DE6BDC978E9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12802584>10*0.99=9.99Hmmmmm
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:20:25 2021 No.12803271 File: 126 KB, 1131x622, math majors on suicide watch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12802546This guy gets it.I stopped caring about math when I was introduced to the concept of imaginary numbers. What a crock of shit. If your equation can only be solved by inventing numbers that can't exist, like some kind of math deity, then you are fucking wrong and the math is flawed. Same for algebra solutions that basically say "the correct answer is whatever the correct answer is". Thats what the math said transcribed to words but god forbid if i wrote in down in english instead of the ancient math runes the teacher word mark me wrong.Math is logical and numbers never lie my ass. Math is just as flawed as any other human construct.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:21:28 2021 No.12803275 >>12802546>the real length of the hypotenuse of an imaginary triangle is zeroI’d be more confused if math told me the imaginary triangle was real
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:21:55 2021 No.12803278 >>12803271>t. Pythagoras
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:37:21 2021 No.12803344 >>12803271>If your equation can only be solved by inventing numbers that can't exist, like some kind of math deity, then you are fucking wrong and the math is flawed.not only that but you invent new special exceptions and rules that state >my ultimate based&redpilled theorem applies everywhere... except for the case where it's an imaginary number. Then that's bad and you should cease applying it asap.Which in that case is the meme imaginary triangle. It's a simple statement, it just adds an i-length side to a unit triangle. Everyone above age 14 is aware that you can't do that, yet everyone is also aware that math isn't supposed to be this easily breakable and to have to rely on some exceptions to prevent you from doing this. A whole set of numbers for what exactly? You can't even apply them anywhere. And the other perfect example is the division by zero which breaks math before you even begin to move the number line.From this point onward you can attack the entire ZFC and the claim that there can exist infinite sets, a claim that is reflexively taken as the ultimate Truth in modern society, which is false because the only ones geometrically applicable to our reality are the natural numbers. Everything else is judeo-rationalist cope, an attempt to pull you into the platonic realm of infinite possibilities that does not respond to the reality that is limited from these infinities.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:46:30 2021 No.12803365 >>12803183Eh. Not really. The math is fine, but the pic is intentionally sets up two legs in the Gaussian plane and then warps in a hypotenuse from the Cartesian plane. It's supposed to be wrong.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:49:47 2021 No.12803385 >>12803344>division by zero which breaks mathHow so?
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:53:06 2021 No.12803397 File: 97 KB, 860x691, imagen_2021-03-07_145259.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 15:54:47 2021 No.12803403 File: 164 KB, 498x497, Hmmm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:05:53 2021 No.12803455 >>12803271Based.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:07:18 2021 No.12803464 >>12803344There are integer polynomials whose roots cannot be found in the integers. In order to solve these equations you have to make up these new numbers called rational numbers. Similarly, there are equations made from rational numbers that cannot be solved with the rational numbers so we invent another fictional new type of number called irrational numbers (wtf!). The irrational numbers combined with the rationals forms the set of real numbers. The imaginary numbers also are created to solve real cooefficient polynomials not solvable with real numbers numbers. All imaginary polynomials have roots in the set of imaginary numbers (which reals are a subset of). By your logic of imaginary numbers being made up, so are every other number other than the counting numbers (ie natural numbers). Fractions don't exist and are fictional nonsense.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:10:34 2021 No.12803482 >>12803271See>>12803464Its not just imaginary numbers that are made up, but also every other number outside the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...)Fractions and negative numbers are nonsense and don't exist. How can you have a negative or fractional number of something? It's literal nonsense
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:12:38 2021 No.12803493 >>12802595The norm of i is 1.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:30:24 2021 No.12803565 >>12803493Op's picture is a triangle where the norm of one side is i
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 16:31:20 2021 No.12803570 >>12803493yeah, but that's not relevant
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 17:50:39 2021 No.12803964 >>12803482Natural numbers don't exist either, they are concepts. You can picture me one of something, but "one"? What is a one? Same with anything else. Also, under your own criteria, would the 0 be considered real?
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 18:34:24 2021 No.12804203 >>12803271Before non-integer multiplication the concept of 5.4 times 7.8 didn't exist. Suddenly, when multiplication is generalized to non-integers this becomes feasible. No difference with "imaginary numbers", you're just bitching about the name.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 19:08:39 2021 No.12804338 >>12804203Not true, that’s just 54 times 78 in a different integer radix. You may have a point, but you need to try harder.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 19:13:31 2021 No.12804352 >>12803271QM is real and i exists in QM so imaginary numbers exist afterall
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 19:15:58 2021 No.12804364 >>12804352You can do qm without imaginary numbers
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 19:20:55 2021 No.12804383 >>12804364You mean with vector analogs that totally aren't the same thing as imaginary numbers?
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 19:23:32 2021 No.12804399 File: 139 KB, 900x900, 8609B011-2147-47A1-AAD6-C7B3821317FD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12802546>bwaaaah why does math defined in the upper right half of the real plane not import to the imaginary plane without careful consideration?>math is fake and gay!These shitpost threads get old.Same goes for undergrads who talk about how imaginary numbers are fake even though there’s an intuitive, canonical, concrete way to identify the complex numbers: $\mathbb{C} \cong \mathbb{R}[x] / (x^2 + 1)$.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 19:25:41 2021 No.12804404 >>12804399Yea, imaginary numbers don't even have to be a thing. It's just a convenient way of embodying how they multiply.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 19:27:25 2021 No.12804408 >>12804399> concrete> ≈back to /lit/, faggot, your phd in applied iambs has no currency here
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 19:27:40 2021 No.12804410 >>12804399you realize all the shitposters don't understand what you just wrote, and will continue ad nauseum anyway, in spite of the fact you just BTFO'd them right
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 19:31:53 2021 No.12804428 >>12804410>shitposters don't understand this 3rd grade math. I really am getting too old for /sci/.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 19:37:15 2021 No.12804449 >>12804410I think the OP image is very beautiful, showing that making imagination normal to reality creates makes the ends of the imagination appear infinitely near.
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 19:47:44 2021 No.12804491 >>12802546it doesn't work like that because i is in other dimension
 >> Anonymous Sun Mar 7 19:50:24 2021 No.12804503 >>12804428No, you're just retarded. Yes, you can express C as a quotient ring. Yes, you can express C as vectors. None of that changes the fact that the OP image is nonsense.
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 8 01:54:45 2021 No.12805504 >>12804503>None of that changes the fact that the OP image is nonsense.it's not though
 >> Anonymous Mon Mar 8 02:05:50 2021 No.12805519 >>12805504Pythagorean theorem applies to lengths not coordinates on the Cartesian plane
>>
 Name E-mail Subject Comment Password [?]Password used for file deletion. Captcha Action