[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 49 KB, 607x520, 1312914516104.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3716881 [Reply] [Original]

Hello /sci/

I have been using Khan Academy's math resources for a while now, and they are pretty good. However, I keep hearing that PatrickJMT is better. Why? What makes his tutorials better than the Khan Academy ones?

I just want to use the resource that will give me the best understanding, to be sure I am using my time well.

>> No.3716898

>>3716891
Holy shit I did not even see your post before I posted.

>> No.3716894

Personal preference? Both are good. Use whichever you like, it's not like they cost anything or must be used to the exclusion of one another. Sometimes the teaching style of one works better for you for a particular topic and sometimes it doesn't work as well. Both are great teachers, though.

>> No.3716908
File: 17 KB, 320x352, 1315340913315.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3716891

Pic realted.

>> No.3716918

I really wish people would watch the Khan Academy video on Intelligent Design before claiming the guy's a creationist. His contempt for the idea is obvious.

>> No.3716921

>>3716891

Wow and I actually defended your bigot ass in previous threads. -1 EK fan

>> No.3716929

>>3716891
EK, I thought you left when everybody doxed you? Why did you come back?

>> No.3716943

>>3716922

>http://www.khanacademy.org/video/intelligent-design-and-evolution?playlist=Biology

delivered

>> No.3716944

i stopped watching khan after finding patrick jmt

khan goes on for 15 minutes explaining concepts then does the most simplistic example problem possible. jmt does the kind of problems you come across in homework and tests, assuming you already have some understanding of the material. also hes not an islamic extremist responsible for the 9/11 of education.

>> No.3716945

>>3716929

Because he's a stupid attention whore who cannot live without broadcasting his staggering ignorance. Please don't encourage it.

>> No.3716946

Seriously though, Sal is cool. In the evolution video he tries really hard not to offend anybody while making it clear that evolution happened and creationism is pseudoscience.

>> No.3716954

>>3716943

>http://www.khanacademy.org/video/human-evolution-overview?playlist=Cosmology%20and%20Astronomy

Watch this too.

>> No.3716973

one word

HIPSTERS

>> No.3716976

>>3716954

That video is probably more representative of why the guy should never be called a creationist.

>> No.3716992

>>3716952
Whatever you say, Rose.

>> No.3717025

>>3717005
Don't deny it.

>> No.3717037

Troll or no. Whatever happened to that thread where she was doxed on the archive? I can't find it!

>> No.3717059

>>3717040
>Had the same initials.
>Was a part of the Darwin Society.
>Lived in the same country.
>Matched your description of yourself.

Not to mentioned you stopped posting in /sci/ for quite some time after this was released.

>> No.3717064

>>3717051
I love you and everything you stand for.

>> No.3717077

>>3716891
Why haven't you been perma banned from this place? You are wrong on so many topics, troll obviously, and are just fucking ignorant. We already know who you really are, and Harriet abandoned you.

Just shut up teacup.

Mods, do your job.

>> No.3717080

>>3717077
Obvious samefag is obvious. Shut up, Rose.

>> No.3717081
File: 95 KB, 452x635, REK.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>> No.3717087

>>3717080
LOL did you just call me EK? I have been here longer than she has and always call her out.

I thought summer time was over.

>> No.3717092

>>3717087
I am would assume he either misread your post or clicked on the wrong tag.

>> No.3717098

>>3717087
>>3717092

Samefag, samefag everywhere.
Stay with one trip, EK.

>> No.3717101

>>3717093
It is too bad that I didn't screenshot that thread where I own your ass. I wouldn't like archiving 100+ threads.

>> No.3717102
File: 662 KB, 849x601, REK2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>> No.3717105

>>3717101
>>3717100
>Tripfags arguing with tripfags.

Whomever wins, we all all lose.

>> No.3717107

>>3717105
FTFY:
>EK monologizing

>> No.3717110
File: 30 KB, 465x576, 1298641069369.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3717105

>someone actually using 'whom' correctly
>on 4chan, no less

>> No.3717129

>>3717113

I've been here long enough to know that you're three out of four of those for certain, and probably one other.

>> No.3717132
File: 143 KB, 1050x1050, MW-npc-Divayth_Fyr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3717087
And you're just a 15 year old ridden with aspergers, Inuyasha. All tripfags are emotionally broken individuals.

>> No.3717135

>>3717113
I didn't know you were niggerman.
Thanks for confessing.

>> No.3717138

Ek can't be a girl, no girl is this good at trolling.

>> No.3717151

>>3717144
Just shut up.

>> No.3717159
File: 39 KB, 395x599, 395px-Kim_Il_Song_Portrait-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3717110
Everyone knows whom is accusative, not nominative.
So no, he didn't.

>> No.3717160

>>3717134
I am curios. If you didn't leave /sci/ because you were doxed. Why did you leave for such a long time afterwards.

>> No.3717163
File: 11 KB, 320x350, photo19.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3717156
Hey EK, did you suck FactsVsReligion's dick yet?

>> No.3717165

>>3717156
>HURRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!! GIVE ME UR ATTENTION!!!!!!!!

>> No.3717174

ITT: The same EK daily faggottry

Just stop posting, you're probably the biggest attentionwhore i've seen in all the boards. And you obviously get off from the negative attention since you are still here.

>> No.3717182
File: 4 KB, 214x255, 1314280863481.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3717172

>> No.3717183

>>3717172
Lol, bullshit, one day after you were doxed you said "i haven't been on my computer for the past 2 days". You are retarded beyond belief.

>> No.3717189
File: 75 KB, 598x879, negro-playing-banjo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3717172
You set no one straight.
*strum*

>> No.3717191

>>3717159

English doesn't have an accusative case or a nominative case, just an object and subject case. Whom is for both direct AND indirect objects. Though yes, the use was incorrect.

>> No.3717194

>>3717159

>herp a derp I'm going to google things to sound smart

Whom is used with an object, and 'Who' is used with the subject.

The subject of his sentence was 'we'. His base sentence was "We all lose". Then he inserted the subordinate clause including the object "tripfags". Thus he used it correctly. Go back to wikipedia, kiddy.

>> No.3717203
File: 8 KB, 250x250, 1314389566958.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3717198
>2011
>not having a mobile computer

ishygddt

>> No.3717212

>>3717191
English still retains some nominative pronouns, which are contrasted with the accusative (comparable to the oblique or disjunctive in some other languages): I (accusative, me), we (accusative, us), he (accusative, him), she (accusative, her), they (accusative, them) and who (accusative, whom).
And in english the accusative and dative are collectively labelled as the objective case.

>> No.3717216

>>3717198
You stopped posting about 1 hour before your facebook was leaked, then you came the next day claiming you didn't used your computer for the past 2 days.

hurr

Afterwards you cooked up a retarded scheme to confuse people, needless to say it didn't worked, at all. Seek attention somewhere else cumguzzling whore.

>> No.3717230

>>3717198
Also, why do you pick up your phone and keep silent until someone speaks? Persecution complex much?

>> No.3717232
File: 30 KB, 456x304, ghost-304-062711.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=618615103
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=618615103
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=618615103
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=618615103

>> No.3717252

>>3717159
>>3717191
>>3717194
>>3717212

I have created a lit thread for discussing the "whom" sentence if you are interested.
>>>/lit/2070178

>> No.3717290

completely unrelated thread turned into EK-thread

all my why

(what cant you just ignore her trip faggots)

>> No.3717294

>>3717212

All subject pronouns could be called nominative, but that's not how they're labelled. Also, no object pronouns are not correctly labeled as accusative, because they are the same for use with indirect objects. They may have come from the accusative pronouns of Old English, but referring to them by the name of a grammatical feature English lost long ago makes absolutely no sense and is not how they're labelled by linguists. You could even fucking look this up on wikipedia to find these things out.

Regardless, this is not on topic, just don't try to rename things to support your point when you fuck something up. It's perfectly alright to make mistakes. To insist they weren't mistakes is childish.

>> No.3717311

>>3717294
I got that information directly from wikipedia.

>> No.3717320
File: 1.53 MB, 2636x2036, Bild0012.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

f(x) is differentiable. f(x)' is continuous.

How can I prove that f(x) is uniformly continuous? (meaning it is continuous in the closed interval [a,b])

Been trying this problem for hours.

>> No.3717329

>>3717294
Pronoun
whom (the singular and plural objective case of who)
(formal) What person or people; which person or people, as the object of a verb.
Whom did you ask?
 [quotations ▼]
(formal) What person or people; which person or people, as the object of a preposition.
To whom are you referring?
With whom were you talking?
 [quotations ▼]
Him; her; them (used as a relative pronoun to refer to a previously mentioned person or people.)
He's a person with whom I work.
We have ten employees, half of whom are carpenters.

>> No.3717332

>>3717294
Pronoun
who singular or plural, nominative case (possessive whose, objective case whom, or who)
(Note that who is usually used instead of whom, especially in informal contexts.)
(interrogative pronoun) What person or people; which person or people (used in a direct or indirect question).
Who is that? (direct question)
I don't know who it is. (indirect question)
(relative pronoun) The person or people that.
It was a nice man who helped us.

>> No.3717334

>>3717320

Remember, all continuous functions can be integrated.

>> No.3717342

>>3717320
Look up the definition of integration. All your problems should be satisfied there.

>> No.3717358

>>3717311

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_case#Indo-European_languages

>The nominative case, which corresponds to English's subjective case, indicates the subject of a finite verb:

>We went to the store.

>The accusative case, which together with the dative and ablative cases (below) corresponds to English's objective case, indicates the direct object of a verb:

>The clerk remembered us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronoun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_pronoun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_pronoun

Somehow, I don't think you read very closely.

>>3717329

I don't know what you are trying to indicate by that respond. They're of the objective and subjective cases, not nominative, accusative, or dative. That was kind of my point.

>> No.3717374

>>3717358
The point of the response was clarification. Furthermore, I don't think you read closely. Subject/initiator pronoun Object/target pronoun
I Me
He Him
She Her
It It
We Us
You You
They Them
Who Whom
English once had an extensive declension system that specified distinct pronouns for accusative and dative cases. This collapsed into a single pronoun for both accusative and dative cases, now called the objective pronoun. Thus, many requirements for declension in English concerning the objective and subjective pronouns have since mostly regressed. Objective pronouns in English are a vestige of this older case system.

>> No.3717389

>>3717374
For intents and purposes whom is accusative and who is nominative since both contrast in contemporary english cases and were distinguished from each other utilising those case delineations; accusative and nominative in older english, as well as protogermanic and latin.

>> No.3717393

>>3717374

Yeah, but I wasn't claiming that they didn't COME from older versions of the words which did have such cases, just that the pronouns are not now accusative, dative, ablative, nominative, etc. I was not claiming it had not been an accusative pronoun at one point in the history of the language, just that it isn't now and that defining any words in Modern English as such is incorrect.

>> No.3717394

>>3717389
For all*

>> No.3717415

>>3717389

That argument is certainly true for the subjective case mapping to the nominative, but not so for the objective case to the accusative, which is only right some of the time. Just remember that the accusative is specifically for direct objects, and that you would have to say that whom is accusative/dative to also account for the fact that it is used for indirect objects as well.

>> No.3717417

>>3717393
I wasn't claiming that either, I just used accusative and nominative pedagogically, for the sake of clarity. I didn't feel like explaining objective and subjective cases.

>> No.3717426

>>3717415
Yes, but the dative case uses a preposition. For whom, to whom, etc, which was obviously not mistaken when the person used "whomever" it was more of an issue with accusative and nominative.

>> No.3717465

>>3717426

That's kind of a silly thing to argue about, as you're suggesting that someone could have read that sentence and been unsure if it was the person being won or doing the winning. Given that slavery isn't terribly commonplace anymore I doubt anyone would interpret it as that. Still, fair enough, I suppose. It's just that most people on /sci/ aren't terribly familiar with grammatical rules and terms and could misunderstand as accusative being generally equivalent to "any object".