/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5554623]

discuss

[Anonymous No.5554627]

you will never actually reach a circle, just a polygon with infinite sides

[Anonymous No.5554631]

>>5554627
>a polygon with infinite sides
you mean a circle?

[Anonymous No.5554634]

it will miss loads of points along the circumference. those points represent all the irrational numbers you can't reach by this method.

[Anonymous No.5554635]

Step 1: Let a=b.
Step 2: Then ,
Step 3: ,
Step 4: ,
Step 5: ,
Step 6: and .
Step 7: This can be written as ,
Step 8: and cancelling the from both sides gives 1=2.

[Anonymous No.5554643]

we've clearly been drawing circles wrong all this time.

[Anonymous No.5554644]

http://qntm.org/trollpi

The limit of a sequence need not necessarily share any properties with the members of that sequence. Just like how 1/n > 0 but the limit of 1/n as n goes to infinity is not larger than 0.

[Anonymous No.5554662]

[Anonymous No.5554666]

>>5554662
there's no such thing as an infinitely jagged circle.

[Anonymous No.5554672]

>>5554634
this

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554768]

<<<

[Anonymous No.5554792]

[Anonymous No.5554794]

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554808]

>>5554792
>>5554794
fuck off
and btw, i'm correct in that first one.

[Anonymous No.5554812]

>>5554808
No, you're not. Have you learned limits by now?

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554813]

>>5554812
i dont fucking study math!
how about you go fuck yourself!
why the fuck would i even need math!?? everything is done by computer now anyway.
hows it feel to be studying a field that's now completely obsolete because computers are way better than humans at it, faggot??

[Anonymous No.5554816]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2xYjiL8yyE

[sage No.5554817]

>>5554813

[Anonymous No.5554821]

>>5554813
0/10

[Anonymous No.5554826]

>>5554813
do you even know what math is?

[Anonymous No.5554833]

>>5554623
Pi = 24? That's just silly.

[Anonymous No.5554839]

>>5554813

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554840]

>>5554826
[sarcasm] no, i've no idea. please explain [/sarcasm]

[Anonymous No.5554846]

>>5554813
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554848]

>>5554821
>>5554839
you know i'm right.
fucking about with numbers and shit doesnt actually even help anyone. it doesnt cure disease, it doesnt advance the human race, and it doesnt improve technology.
it's just neurotic fags thinking their smart, but arnt actually even helping anyone.

science is way better than math
deal with it

[Anonymous No.5554852]

>>5554813
But if you don't know math, how will you:

1] know how to set up a problem
2) know what to tell the computer to do to solve the problem.
3) know if the computer is giving you a bullshit answer?

An idiot with a computer can certainly generate alot of answers. They will just all probably be wrong.

[Anonymous No.5554853]

>>5554813
Take your pills.

[Anonymous No.5554855]

>>5554813
>>5554840
>>5554848

[Anonymous No.5554856]

>>5554813
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Anonymous No.5554858]

>>5554853
This, EK you should take your medicines.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554861]

>>5554852
>3) know if the computer is giving you a bullshit answer?
they can't/
computers always have to do exactly what you tell them.
if i plug a calculation into the calculator on my computer, it physically cant lie, it HAS to be totally honest.

wheras if i ask the same thing to some faggot mathematician, then yeh, maybe they can lie
which again, is why computers are superior at this.

[Anonymous No.5554865]

>>5554848
Statistics apparently in no way Helps with decision making or deternine if events happens by random chance. By that token, probability its also meaningless. I mean insurance and casinos aren't even real things.

Confidently operations research contributes nothing to management of logistics, because who needs to move things around in the cheapest meaningful fashion.

And physics...who uses that? Clearly nobody since it is just applied Calc...and math is useless.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554863]

>>5554853
>>5554858
shut the fuck up about that you ignorant faggots! you dont even know what you're talking about so STFU

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554869]

>>5554855

[Anonymous No.5554875]

>>5554863
Well it's fucking clear that you have issues with your mental health, and even if you don't have meds you definitely should get some
Just face the truth and you might get some help.

[Anonymous No.5554883]

>>5554861
I see people using calculators get wrong answers with calculators ALL the time. Students, professionals, pretty much everywhere. If a human must presses the buttons I can guarantee there is a chance for a wrong answer to appear on the screen either from a wrong number entered, or the wrong operation being used.

Even Wolfram alpha has been known to take an entry from me and completely misunderstand what I wanted.

You also assume that you're computer is perfectly programmed, and thus will perform the operations perfectly. This is often not the case.

Tl;dr calculators have no idea what they are doing, so they need someone who knows what they are doing or else they give you a wrong answer to many points if precision.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554888]

>>5554865
so a few tiny bits of math are slightly useful, yeh, we obviously need to be able to add up and shit to be able to buy things and make sure jewwy bastards arnt screwing us over with the wrong change and shit. and yeh, probability.
but apart from that, all your stupid graphs and fake made up letters and shit, yeh, that doesnt help any1 and you know it.

[Anonymous No.5554891]

>>5554672
No you're dumb AND simultaneously stupid, see >>5554666, he's right.
It's because you're switching a limit you can't switch:
<span class="math">
\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_a^b f'_n \neq \int_a^b\lim_{n\to\infty} f'_n,
[/spoiler]
even if <span class="math"> \lim_{n\to\infty} \int_a^b f_n\to\int_a^b f,[/spoiler], where <span class="math"> f_n\to f[/spoiler]
lrn2realanalysis

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554894]

>>5554883
>I see people using calculators get wrong answers with calculators ALL the time.
that's coz their morons who are plugging in the wrong numbers. i always use them right, coz i aint retarded!

>Even Wolfram alpha has been known to take an entry from me and completely misunderstand what I wanted.
then it's your fault for not being specific enough.

[Anonymous No.5554904]

>>5554888
Tiny bits? Statistics, probability, operations research, and physics are whole fields of mathematics capable of justifying entire college Degrees dedicated to them. Degrees companies actually ask for on job postings.

I mean sure, you're just a troll and all, but you gotta troll a little harder than that.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554909]

>>5554904
physics is totally separate from mathematics. you aint counting that. it's science.

[Anonymous No.5554914]

>>5554909
tip: people cant tell you are sarcastic through text.

you are being sarcastic,... right?

[Anonymous No.5554918]

>>5554894

1) if you put all the numbers in and always use the right operations, then you know math. OR you don't know math and are thus incapable of telling the difference between a right or wrong answer. Whichever you choose to believe only proves my point.

2) textbook standard should be as specific as I need to be, but it sure is a good thing I knew enough math to recognize that I needed to be more specific. Guess that's another point for me.

Thanks die proving all my points. Is this some sort of reverse trolling? Because you aren't supposed to make my arguments against you look this good...

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554925]

>>5554914
no. i mean yeh, you have to use some math in physics, obviously.
still different fields of study tho
physics is a science
math aint.

[Anonymous No.5554927]

>>5554909
And how does removing physics from my INCOMPLETE list of useful mathematical fields of study hurt my point?

Ignoring the fact that physics really is just applied calculus...

[Anonymous No.5554929]

>>5554909
>physics is totally separate from mathematics

No, it isn't.
Without mathematics, physics doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Physics is purely maths.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554931]

>>5554927
erm, no
physics is far more than that.
it's a pretty broad science, brah.

>>5554914
>you are being sarcastic,... right?
lern-2-sarcasm tags, pleb.

[Anonymous No.5554935]

>>5554925
Alright I refreshed my phone a bunch of times and didn't see any more posts from ek the troll.

I have to go hit the gym, and officially declare tell slain.

[Anonymous No.5554937]

Why are you guys still feeding the idiot troll, seriously what's wrong with you guys?

Let the ignorant stay ignorant

[Anonymous No.5554938]

>>5554925
"some math in physics"
>some

[Anonymous No.5554941]

>>5554931
Ok, saw that just after posting and refreshing my troll slain post.

Due to lack of any new argument, I do not revise my troll slain ruling

[Anonymous No.5554940]

>>5554931
>physics is more than math

Translated:

>I've never picked up a physics textbook in my life

[Anonymous No.5554944]

>>5554925
any physics beyond special relativity and quantum mechanics is basically just pure math. just look at QFT, we have the equation,
<div class="math"> \int D \phi \phi(x_1)\phi(x_2)...\phi(x_n) e^{i \int d^{D+1}x L} </div>
, that is easy to establish, the rest of the 10 years to your doctorate you study ways to solve it, which is pure math.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554945]

>>5554940
i studied both physics and math back in school, you ignorant fuck (FYI, i kicked ass at both)
and yeh, we had textbooks

[Anonymous No.5554950]

>>5554945
>back in school
all physics you learn in school is from 200 years ago, you expect it to use math from today? there has been a lotr of progress if you haven't noticed.

[Anonymous No.5554952]

>>5554944

Looks like a fourier transform.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554958]

>>5554950
oh yeah??
fine. enlighten me. what fucking progress in math have we had since i was in school then?
AND how is it actually useful in REAL FUCKING LIFE, or is it just squiggles on paper and
>oooh! look at this cool pattern i found! that is meaningless and who gives a shit?

pff, if there was real progress, i'd have noticed it.

[Anonymous No.5554961]

>>5554945
>high school
my sides

[Anonymous No.5554962]

>>5554952
its a functional integral over all the different field configurations with each configuration weighed by a phase determined by the action of that conficuration.

[Anonymous No.5554964]

>>5554958
see the post about QFT and its equation.

[Anonymous No.5554968]

>>5554813

>be on a different computer
>don't have my precious filter list

>see this shit

goddammit, just why

[Anonymous No.5554969]

>>5554958
Holy shit you're retarded.
What did you major in?
What do you do for a living now?
Just curious.

[Anonymous No.5554972]

>>5554962

That's far above my level.
Looks interesting though.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554970]

>>5554964
QFT is physics. try again.

i mean something that's completely math. you aint allowed to use science examples.

[Anonymous No.5554975]

>>5554970

Lie algebra.

Fucking anything dude, pick up a book.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554979]

>>5554975
the fuck is that?

[Anonymous No.5554977]

>>5554970

Matrices, jesus fuck they are less than 100 years old and even freshmen biologists can use them.

[Anonymous No.5554985]

>>5554631

Not every infinite polygon is a circle, you fuck.

[Anonymous No.5554981]

>>5554958
we have
Algebraic geometry
Differential Geometry
Algebraic Topology
functional analysis
Algebraic Surfaces and Holomorphic Vector Bundles
Commutative Ring Theory
The Algebraic Theory of Spinors and Clifford Algebras
Fourier analysis on groups
p-adic numbers and p-adic analysis
Groupoids. and Smarandache Groupoids
Representation Theory of Lie groups

all of which are used in any physics developed in the last 100 tears and a lot of engineering.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554983]

>>5554977
had em in school. not useful, just boring.
and easy as fuck

try again

[Anonymous No.5554986]

>>5554983
>easy as fuck

Yeah when you're adding them.
But shit like tensor analysis for relativity is tough.

[Anonymous No.5554993]

>>5554970
>how is it actually useful in REAL FUCKING LIFE,
>i mean something that's completely math. you aint allowed to use science examples.
wat?? no really, wat the fuck? you want math that's used in real live, but not that's used in real life?

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554995]

>>5554986
>tensor analysis
uhuh, and what's that actually useful for??

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554992]

>>5554981
>all of which are used in any physics developed in the last 100 tears and a lot of engineering.
nice to see you cant fucking read!

>i mean something that's completely math. you aint allowed to use science examples.

ao try again!

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5554997]

>>5554992
*so

[Anonymous No.5554998]

>>5554995

Real life stuff like putting satellites in the sky.

[Anonymous No.5555003]

>>5554768

Hardly valid, since you introduce rounding errors in every iteration and you'd probably converge to something that is quite different from π.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5555004]

>>5554993
so you prove my pint then?
math is only actually of any use, when it's incorporated into physics
on its own, it's worthless.

>>5554998
fine, that's maybe like 1 example.
and it's still related to physics, anyway.

[Anonymous No.5555006]

> all these people taking EK seriously
> actually responding to EK
What the fuck mang.

[Anonymous No.5555007]

>>5554992
see
>>5554993

you are asking a question that cant be answered. name one concept in math that is used in real life, we dont use pure addition, multiplication, subtraction or anything.

>so a few tiny bits of math are slightly useful
name one. there are none with your criteria.

[Anonymous No.5555001]

>>5554992

So you want math that doesn't have any real application outside of maths?
Then yes, it would be completely useless.

Plenty of it exists though.

[Anonymous No.5555011]

>>5555004
>moving goal posts
>2013

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5555012]

>>5555003
who says you'd have to round?
just keep it as an exact number each time.
(and yes, i am aware that the digits in pi goes on infinitely, but it still obviously converges towards it)

[Anonymous No.5555009]

>>5555004
>into physics

Or anything else.

[Anonymous No.5555013]

>>5555004
everything in the world is related to physics, physics is the study of the world after all.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5555014]

>>5555013
philosophy aint

[Anonymous No.5555018]

>>5555014
Philosophy is master race.

[Anonymous No.5555019]

>>5555006
It's like watching dogs trying to attack the dot coming from a laser pointer or something it's kind of fascinating.

[Anonymous No.5555023]

>>5555014
what does philosophy have to do with the world? there are no real world applications of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5555020]

>>5555014
>>5555018

Philosophy is bogus because it's subjective.

[Anonymous No.5555031]

>>5555029
name one.

[Anonymous No.5555029]

>>5555023
>there are no real world applications of philosophy.
huehuehue

[Anonymous No.5555032]

>>5555023
>political philosophy

maybe read up on the enlightenment

[Anonymous No.5555033]

>>5555031
without philosophy, how do you even know what the "real world" is?

[Anonymous No.5555035]

>>5555014
Please find an application for philosophy that doesn't deal with real subjects like political science and sociology please.
One that is useful for something.

[Anonymous No.5555036]

>>5555023
When you say philosophy, you probably mean metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.5555039]

All of the following facts are true:

1. The picture describes a sequence of curves. (Here, "curve" is a generic term referring to any continuous line, be it straight or crooked or curved.)
2. This sequence of curves converges on a limit curve.
3. The limit curve is a circle. It is not a sawtoothed curve. It is not an "infinitely jagged" sawtoothed curve. It is not a fractal. The limit curve is a perfectly smooth perfect circle.
4. The length of the limit curve is exactly pi (3.1 or so). (Because it is a perfect circle with diameter 1.)

These facts are also true:

1. Each curve in the sequence has a well-defined length.
2. Each curve in the sequence has a length of exactly 4.
3. Thus, the lengths of the curves also form a sequence: 4, 4, 4, 4....
4. This sequence also converges on a limit.
5. The limit is 4, not pi.

And so is this final fact:

None of these facts contradict each other.

Why?

The limit of a sequence isn't necessarily a member of that sequence.

Because of this, the limit of a sequence need not necessarily share any properties with the members of that sequence.

Here, you've seen a sequence of curves of length 4, whose limit curve does not have length 4. You've also seen a sequence of jagged, right-angled curves whose limit curve is not jagged or right-angled at all, but smooth.

This is not a problem. It's not a contradiction. It's just the way it is.

Breathe in. Breathe out. Carry on with whatever you were doing.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5555040]

>>5555023
well yeh, but thats why i said it has nothing to do with physics.

[Anonymous No.5555041]

>>5555031
solipsism, qualia, free will, ethics, etc etc

[Anonymous No.5555038]

>>5555033

Lel stop.
The real world is everything you can observe and measure.

[Anonymous No.5555046]

>>5555038
Observation and measurement is applied empiricism, i.e. philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5555047]

If a subject doesn't use maths as its foundation then it's inherently flawed because it can only be subjective.
If it is not absolutely objective as maths is, then it is not worth learning for it is universally irrelevant.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5555048]

>>5555035
i dont study philosophy, i dont need to defend it.

if i thought it was worth a shit, i might have checked it out.

[Anonymous No.5555049]

>>5555038
But that claim is itself philosophical.

[Anonymous No.5555044]

>>5555035
excluding the physics which is useful find a useful application for physics.

[Anonymous No.5555051]

>>5555046
You're implying everything is philosophical.
It's not.

Philosophers are a sad group of people who look for deeper meanings than there are.

[Anonymous No.5555053]

>>5555031
Philosophy is a science.

[Anonymous No.5555055]

>>5555053
No.

[Anonymous No.5555057]

>>5555051
Name one thing that isn't philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5555058]

>>5555049

Perhaps there was a time when philosophy was necessary to develop the sciences, but that time has long passed.

[Anonymous No.5555054]

>>5555044
You typing being able to communicate with me right now.

[Anonymous No.5555059]

>>5555054
oh, sorry, that derives from one of the useful fields of physics. What are the uses of the fields of physics that aren't useful.

[Anonymous No.5555061]

>>5555055
Yes.

[Anonymous No.5555062]

>>5555055
Yes!

[Anonymous No.5555064]

>>5555057

Anything not related to humans.
The universe would still exist if we had not evolved to observe it.

[Anonymous No.5555065]

>>5555051
i don't think you've ever even met a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.5555067]

>>5555064
>The universe would still exist if we had not evolved to observe it.

Please prove that claim. Where's your evidence?

[Anonymous No.5555068]

>>5555059

The only "not useful" field of science I can think of is astronomy/astrophysics.

Most of the equipment and methods of observation come from different branches.

[Anonymous No.5555066]

>>5555038

"But muh subjective definition of reality!"

Philosophy majors are prime examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Anonymous No.5555073]

>>5555067
>the universe only exists so long as I am alive

I'm sorry but this conversation is going places it shouldn't be.

[Anonymous No.5555077]

>>5555068
But muh GPS!

[Anonymous No.5555071]

There has not been anything new in philosophy since the ancient greeks.

[Anonymous No.5555072]

>>5555059
Discovering things that are not useful right now, but will be when applied in the future will be. I wouldn't say anything in physics is useless. It all will be applicable someday.

[Anonymous No.5555083]

>>5555077
Not really astro.

[Anonymous No.5555079]

>>5555072
>It all will be applicable someday.
Wow, so I guess your physics also gave you psychic powers. Neat.

[Anonymous No.5555080]

>>5555064

If philosophy is such an all-encompassing term, what's the point of labelling things as "philosophical" in the first place? Just seems like it's something pretentious one would throw into an argument to add some kind of intellectual weight to it. That's just my philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5555084]

>>5555073
the question of "ought" such as where ought the conversation be going is philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5555085]

>>5555080

Philosophy seems to be a term applied to subjective thinking or things that cannot be dis/proven.

[Anonymous No.5555086]

>>5555073
You mean places where you are out of arguments? Thanks for admitting defeat.

[Anonymous No.5555087]

>>5555047
nothing is as objective as math is. math is the only thing that can make truth statements.

[Anonymous No.5555089]

>>5555084

It's not though, is it.

The universe existed before humans and will exist after.

[Anonymous No.5555093]

>>5555087

Maths is amazing.
It predicted anti-particles, the constant speed of light etc. long before these things had actually been measured.

[Anonymous No.5555097]

>>5555085
So it isn't a science.

[Anonymous No.5555103]

>>5555097
Not in a modern sense.

[Anonymous No.5555116]

>>5555041
>solipsism
irrelevant thought experiments
>qualia
irrelevant thought experiments
>free will
self evident
>ethics
this is actually legitimate

[Anonymous No.5555118]

>>5554813

I am actually starting to learn math on my own for fun since I am very interested in physics and shit, so I want to understand the math behind it. I already have an accounting degree and a career in the financial industry but I find math interesting.

Everything you touch requires math you don't understand in order to work, how does that make you feel?

[Anonymous No.5555127]

>>5555118
You are but a collection of wavefunctions.

Feelsbadman.

[Anonymous No.5555130]

>>5555116
>>free will
>self evident
wut

[Anonymous No.5555131]

>>5555127
feelsbadassman*

[Anonymous No.5555134]

>>5555116
>thinks anyone is truely free

[Anonymous No.5555151]

OP drives me towards solipsism

[Anonymous No.5555174]

>>5555151
If solipsism means an epileptic seizure from rage, I'm with you.

[Anonymous No.5555179]

>>5554813

why can't computers prove Fermat's theorem then?

why?

[Anonymous No.5555181]

>>5554848
>it doesnt cure disease, it doesnt advance the human race, and it doesnt improve technology.

the funny part is that it does all these things and a bunch more which you were too dumb to include in your TROLE POAST

rofel

[Anonymous No.5555185]

>>5554909
im doing a physics degree, its all fucking maths

[Anonymous No.5555191]

>>5554848
yeah, lets never do anything fun or interesting ever
you're all horrible people for playing video games in your free time instead of researching cancer cures

[Anonymous No.5555263]

>>5555093
no it didnt. human imagination did. math cant predict anything its a tool

[Anonymous No.5555311]

>>5555263
I don't think you understand.

Sometimes you get an equation and you don't even know what it predicts until you solve it, or take the limiting cases.

[Anonymous No.5555428]

>>5554848

>science is way better than math
>yfw you can't do physics without math

[Anonymous No.5555439]

>>5554623

You need to prove that the polygon actually converges to a circle, rather than just making semi-plausible that it does

[Anonymous No.5555448]

>>5555439
can a plank length be curved?

[Anonymous No.5555740]

>>5555061
>>5555062

No.

[Anonymous No.5555754]

>>5555448

Irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.5555765]

It will never be a circle, it will just look like a circle

[Anonymous No.5555766]

>>5555765

Then it is a circle.

[Anonymous No.5555780]

>>5555766

No it isn't.

/thread

[Anonymous No.5555805]

>>5555765
>hurr durr I can't into limits

[Anonymous No.5555835]

HOLY SHIT

[Anonymous No.5555861]

I think this really would troll archimedes

[Anonymous No.5555862]

The number of "corners" in your shape increases with each iteration. The number of "corners" a circle has is zero. Therefore, your shape does not approach a circle in the limit.

[Anonymous No.5555881]

>>5555862
>The number of "corners" a circle has is zero.

Wrong. A circle has infinite corners.

[Anonymous No.5555901]

Let S_1 denote the curve that is the square in the second figure of the OPs picture. For n > 1, let S_n be the curve gotten from S_(n-1) by removing corners as depicted in the OPs picture. Let len(S_n) denote the length of the curve S_n. Clearly, len(S_n) = 4 for all n. Letting C denote the curve that is the circle, the claim is that since lim S_n = C, lim len(S_n) = len(C) and since lim len(S_n) = 4, len(C) = 4.

There are two problems here. (1) What exactly does lim S_n = C mean? (2) Even if we define what that limit means, it is not necessarily the case that the len() function is continuous, i.e. lim len(S_n) != len(lim S_n).

[Anonymous No.5555908]

bi means having sex with both men and women.

[Anonymous No.5555916]

>>5554979
you cannot be serious. This isn't happening

[Anonymous No.5556036]

>>5554962
whiiiich is a fourier transform.