[ 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: 344 KB, 962x602, Screen Shot 2013-09-22 at 6.49.21 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6041628 No.6041628 [Reply] [Original]

Responses incoming. How can people be this goddamn stupid?

>> No.6041633
File: 51 KB, 322x389, Screen Shot 2013-09-22 at 6.52.31 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6041633

>>6041628
What do you think /sci?

>> No.6041642

>>6041633
I think the guy was being a rude asshole and trying to look smart on facebook, he could have been nice and pointed out what was wrong.

The test is also very easy not indicative of genius, perhaps this is 100-110 iq level material, considering that I found it immediately

>> No.6041645

>>6041642
which one is the asshole

>> No.6041648

>>6041628
/sci/ in a nutshell
We need less of such threads.

>> No.6041681

Some people don't have a decent mathematics education as a child.

And how is this any different from 70% of /sci/ posts?

>> No.6041691

>>6041681
who are you referring to?

>> No.6041701

>>6041633
well duh it aint 8=56
its 8-56 or some other marking

>> No.6041704

>>6041701
what?

>> No.6041718

in his defence, it is actually quite stupid to use equal signs for this kind of things
why not arrows?
---->

>> No.6041723

f(8) = 56
f(7) = 42
f(6) = 30
f(5) = 20
f(3) = ?
FIFY

>> No.6041732

>>6041723
f can't equal a number, f is a letter you retard.

>> No.6041735

>>6041628
here you go OP:

its 6

posting solution in a few minutes

>> No.6041741
File: 164 KB, 320x240, 1379024165407.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6041741

i would suggest that 3 does not equal 3, as both instances of the number 3 are not the same instance.

>> No.6041746

>>6041732
fucking lold

>> No.6041756

>>6041723
Unfortunately by formalizing the problem you've made it worse, since the values of f at one point don't determine the values at other points (unless f is continuous & defined on a dense subset, which isn't stated here--even the domain & codomain of f isn't specified). There would be no way to obtain a value of f(3) and prove it to be correct.

sage: why am I replying to this

>> No.6041758

>>6041732
bro, do u even notate?

>> No.6041766

pattern recognition is stupid and people who take it seriously are stupid

>> No.6041784
File: 1 KB, 279x194, malthus-Point-of-crisis.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6041784

>>6041766
>pattern recognition is stupid and people who take it seriously are stupid
This.
pic related: famous pattern-recognizer.

>> No.6041786

>>6041766

Mad because you didn't recognize it?

>> No.6041792

>>6041786
he mad

>> No.6041804

>>6041766
>>6041732
Confirmed for trollbait.

>>6041784
>Pattern recognition is the only true intelligence
It isn't a complete way to measure, because it is not comprehensive as intelligence can range other areas such as creativity and indirect logic. IQ can show how wealthy and healthy the person will be, however some smart people like Feynman didn't have a very high IQ. So its not a precise measurement.

>>6041786
>>6041792
confirmed for samefagging!

>> No.6041808
File: 11 KB, 186x64, he_mad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6041808

>>6041804
you mad?

>> No.6041824

>>6041804
>Pattern recognition is the only true intelligence
nigga wat? I was arguing against pattern recognition, not for it.

>> No.6041872

>>6041786
more like I recognized half a dozen different patterns and had to choose which one was most likely to be the expected answer for this dumb ass test
pattern recognition is just asking yourself "what does the guy asking the question wants me to see?"

>> No.6041875

>>6041872
name one other pattern

>> No.6041877

>>6041875
you can create as many "patterns" as you wish, the simplest examples use some kind of interpolation

>> No.6041879

>>6041872
How do you explain the patterns we see in regular number theory? Big guy in the sky?

Would that make you swear off such an idea?

>> No.6041881

>>6041879
>zomg look at ulam's spiral it's hidden message!!!1!!
patterns only exist because you want to see them

>> No.6041884

>>6041877
you saw half a dozen other patterns so just name one its not hard unless you are a liar

>> No.6041885

>>6041884
just do some lagrange interpolation and take the polynomial's value at 3

>> No.6041889

>>6041804
>mistaking humorous post for trollbait

sure is aspergers

>> No.6041890

>>6041885
You said you SPOTTED a pattern. What exact pattern did you spot?

>> No.6041896

>>6041890
>can't rhetoric POV

more aspergers

>> No.6041900

>>6041628
wait so is it 12 or what?

>> No.6041902

>>6041900
4 = 12

they want 3

>fell at the first

>> No.6041904

>>6041902
those motherfuckers.

>> No.6041924

>itt
idiots being mad at idiots for being idiots.

>> No.6041935

The thing is that Bart is actually totally right, there's no two ways about it. Using equal signs like that is not even close to acceptable.

>> No.6041937

>>6041935
Normally I'd agree but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
(I don't like it either and strive to use <span class="math">\in[/spoiler] where possible.)

>> No.6041954

3=6

>> No.6041963
File: 121 KB, 730x1095, during_the_math_lesson_by_citrin_chan-d699wuw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6041963

>>6041885

http://www.solvemymath.com/online_math_calculator/interpolation.php

[8, 56], [7, 42], [6, 30], [5, 20]

The Best Approximation Function of the Given Set of Points Using the Lagrange Interpolation is:

>x^2 - x

3^2 - 3 = 6

that still equals 6 care to try again!?

>> No.6041967

>>6041628

It's 2 you fucking retards.

8*7=56
7*6=42
...
5*4=20
4 is skipped for some reason
3*2=1

>> No.6041972

>>6041967

Er whoops. 3*2=6.

>> No.6041977

>>6041756

f(x) = x * (x-1)

>> No.6041980

>>6041963
not the anon you are arguing with, but given n points there are an infinite number of order n polynomials that will pass through these points. these can give different values for 3.

>> No.6041983

>>6041980
So what, they are all way more unnecessarily complicated, intelligence involves filtering extraneous data.

>> No.6041986
File: 7 KB, 327x501, humanity&#039;s knowledge at my fingertips.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6041986

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=3%3D6

#rekt

>> No.6041991

>>6041983
assuming simplicity is making an assumption

101 of math rigour is don't make assumptions

>> No.6042001

>>6041991
That's not how common sense operates, your day to day life is a long occurrence of assumptions. Try to walk to school making absolutely no assumptions. It's impossible such a person would be deemed mentally deficient.

>> No.6042005

>>6042001
True, but this is math, not day to day life. Did you not notice the thread was about math?

>> No.6042007

>>6042005
So by your definition a computer is the epitome of intelligence and an assuming human an idiot?

>> No.6042028

>>6042007
Nope. I have made no claims about intelligence. I have just told you a little about how math is done.

Did you assume I was implying something about intelligence?

>> No.6042029

>>6042007
>non-sequitur

>> No.6042033

>>6042029
True, why he thinks I'm claiming one good habit of math is "the epitome of intelligence" is beyond me.

>> No.6042049

>>6041756
How about f(n) = n(n - 1), faggot

>> No.6042061

>>6042049
it's one possible solution out of an infinite solution set.

>> No.6042069

>>6042049
how about f(n) = -84 + 52.3*n - 11.55*n^2 + 1.3*n^3 - 0.05 * n^4?

>> No.6042070

>>6042049
How about f(n) = n^4 - 26n^3 + 252n^2 - 1067n + 1680 retard?

>> No.6042101

>>6042049
how about e^(n^4-26 n^3+251 n^2-1066 n+1680)+(n-φ) (n+1/φ)

where φ is the golden ratio

>> No.6042119

>>6041642
>perhaps this is 100-110 iq level material, considering that I found it immediately

We're all so impressed, anon

>> No.6042132

>>6042069
>>6042070
>>6042101

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."


-Albert Einstein

>> No.6042140

>>6042132
>-Albert Einstein
nope

>> No.6042143

>>6042069
>>6042070
>>6042101

How do you generate these?

>> No.6042147

>>6042143
just expand (n-5)(n-6)(n-7)(n-8) which always = zero on 5, 6, 7 and 8, disguise it somehow, and combine with n(n-1) also disguised perhaps

>> No.6042150

>>6042132
"Any dumb twat can find some hippy shit on the internet and attribute it to me."

~Albert Einstein

>> No.6042151

>>6041633
>the slash means 'cannot equal'
>the slash
>not the slash going through the 'equals' sign

>every other equation listed is mathematically wrong ass well
>equation
>without any variables

Fuck off

>> No.6042153

>>6042140
"Sometimes, the laws of Nature are so simple, we have to rise above the complexity of scientific thought to see them."

-Richard Feynman

by integrating in simple sketches movement in both space and time, Feynman was able to take some very complex mathematical ideas and give them a simple, intuitive representation.

>> No.6042155

>>6042153
>implying Feynman didn't troll when he felt like it.

>> No.6042159

>>6042150
http://books.google.com/books?id=oA0IAQAAIAAJ&q=%22more+violent%22#search_anchor

>> No.6042163

>>6042143
Step 1: choose 4 linearly independent functions. E.g. {1, x, x^2, x^3} or {1, e^x, e^(2x), e^(3x)} or {1, sin x, sin 2x, sin 3x}, etc. Call them {<span class="math">f_1(x),\:f_2(x),\:f_3(x),\:f_4(x)[/spoiler]}. Write <span class="math">L_{abcd}(x)[/spoiler] as shorthand for <span class="math">af_1(x)+bf_2(x)+cf_3(x)+df_4(x)[/spoiler] where a-d are constants.

('Linearly independent' means that the only a-d such that <span class="math">L_{abcd}(x)\equiv 0[/spoiler] for all x is a=b=c=d=0.)

Then solve the system of linear equations <span class="math">L_{abcd}(5)=20,\:L_{abcd}(6)=30,\:L_{abcd}(7)=42,\:L_{abcd}(8)=56[/spoiler] for the constants a-d. (This is equivalent to matrix inversion and can be done on wolframalpha, for example.)

>> No.6042165 [DELETED] 

>>6042147

Oh. I thought there was a way to generate quartic formulae given any number of arbitrary roots.

>> No.6042170

>>6042147

Oh. I thought there was a method to generate a function given any number of arbitrary outputs.

>> No.6042173

>>6042165
there is, and i told you how in my first line

(x - a)(x - b)(x - c)(x - d) has roots a, b, c, and d

>> No.6042182

>>6042163
Couple of additional notes:
1. Once you get your solutions <span class="math">(a^\ast,\:b^\ast,\:c^\ast,\:d^\ast)[/spoiler], the required function is obviously <span class="math">L_{a^\ast b^\ast c^\ast d^\ast}(X)[/spoiler].
2. If you try this with the basis {1, x, x^2, x^3} you end up with (a,b,c,d)=(0,-1,1,0), i.e. f(x) = x^2-x.
3. If you want more than 4 predetermined values (say n), you'll need to choose n linearly independent functions. You can continue any of the obvious patterns above, e.g. {1, x, x^2, x^3, x^4, x^5...} to get a linearly independent set. OR you could break the pattern.

>> No.6042183

>>6042173

Sorry I wrongly worded. I don't want y to be zero at x coordinates a,b,c and d but for y to be arbitrary set values at x = a,b,c and d.

>> No.6042192

>>6041804
>Confirmed for trollbait.
if you really can't spot that he was joking then you are retarded

>> No.6042203

>>6042163
>>6042182

Thank you for the answer, but why do they have to be linearly independent?

>> No.6042207

The main problem is that people usually assume that = is the equal symbol and that it can't have another meaning. Of course, it's highly counter-intuitive and it should never be used in such a way seriously.

>> No.6042216

>>6042203
It's to ensure your system of equations will have a solution.
For example, if you pick the functions {x, x, x, x}, then <span class="math">L_{abcd}(x)=kx[/spoiler] for some constant k. Then you won't be able to solve L(5)=20, L(6)=30, L(7)=42 for example (unless you got lucky and all your desired points end up on a straight line).
Linear algebra: not as useless as you think.

>> No.6042234

>>6041633
>facebook != 4chan

>> No.6042238

>>6041628
unclear notation

should be something like

f(8) = 56
f(7) = 42
etc
f(3) = ?

>> No.6042253

>>6042238
here we go
see >>6041723 and the responses therein.

>> No.6042369

>>6042216

Oh I get it, it's so that there can be one turning point on the graph to match each output. If there are more functions than outputs then there aren't enough equations for the variables to be solved, but if there are less functions than there are outputs then there might not be enough turning points to match each output.

You're a genius

>> No.6042374

>>6042369

Note: You can make up more equations if you want to add more functions.

>> No.6042379

Here is my genius solution that allows for f(3) = 3 whilst ALSO satisfying the other conditions, thus allowing OP to claim victory:

f(n) = -42 + 25.65n - 5.275n^2 + 0.65n^3 - 0.025n^4

>> No.6042387

I think I may write a Python program that allows you to create a set of equations (to be inputted on wolfram alpha) for any sequence of numbers you wish to input, along with the next number you would like to appear in the sequence.

>> No.6042390

>>6041628
>>6041633
master trole

>> No.6042414
File: 9 KB, 265x265, doge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6042414

>>6041633
>trying to greentext on facebook
I think that you're slightly autistic, but not as autistic as the guy you're arguing with or the person who made that image. Congrats, you have discovered that there are retards on the internet! Your nobel price will arrive in the mail in 5 work days.

>> No.6042470

>>6042379
10/10

>> No.6042502

>>6042387
There's already free programs that do this

>> No.6042518

>>6042379
Perfect.
Please post this OP.

>> No.6042537

>>6041628
9

>> No.6042596

>>6042502

Links please? I can't find any on google.

>> No.6042738

Hm, it seems that wolfram alpha can only solve a system of up to 6 simultaneous equations with 6 variables....

>> No.6042753

>>6042738

up to and not including

>> No.6043456

>>6041885
it's going to give the same thing, idiot.
also, there's a reason it's called interpolation.

>> No.6043459
File: 35 KB, 700x700, acktually.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6043459

>>6041633
But 6 = 3 mod 3.

>> No.6043472

Does anybody know the equation for the pattern using sigma notation? I can't recall how to do it.

>> No.6043476

>>6041963
Fuck. How would one go about figuring out this pattern from just looking at the numbers?

>> No.6043493

If you look at the question, what you have is a number A followed by the sign for equivalence and then a number that is not a.

To prove the inequality, we derive a rule sit for the difference between A, and "not a".

3 =3 is still A, ergo 3 can't be 3, which disproves both answers.

So we have to come up with a different composition to our theory; and arbitrarily make "not a" a "B", as they are still equivalently sound while still allowing that 3 can still be 3.

A = B

Hmm.... Still not right.

Instead of introducing new rule sets that pre-exist within the world, we introduce a new world.

ie. F(x) G(a): where the G(a) is going to be non-variable in nature. (ie. albegra.) This in turns doesn't work as it fails the rule set for 2 = ?

>> No.6043501

Am I losing my mind? It's 9 right?

8 = 56
7 = 42
6 = 30
5 = 4
3 = 9

The pattern is that the number on the left is multiplied by number on the right (x) - 1 every row down.

I don't think I understand these threads.

>> No.6043509

7x8=56
6x7=42
5x6=30
4x5=20
3x4=12


t-thats right, i-isnt it?

>> No.6043511

the 4 isnt included so its not part of the pattern you fucking sperglords

>> No.6043527

Not necessarily true. Given the system of introducing a closed world and making an application as if you could join it to one with a specific set of infinite for it's series value n, is.

We are still adding "non-existent" point values into solving the question. How they get added is where we are running into consistency errors.

Any statisticians around? I vaguely recall a modelling system that used the x=y system for a cardinality.

In that case, you have 2 series with a missing 4 on the first one.

56-42= 14
42-30 = 12
30-10 = 10
(null)
3 = 8

As both sides are independent sets, we don't have to worry about the 4 problem, and the second set of numbers remains consistent, with a specific logical structure.

(or we could just give the 3 companion a random data-point and claim both sets are random generates.)

>> No.6043533

>>6043476
luck?
i thought of the most common math patterns and one of them was x^2 - x, and it worked.

>> No.6043553

You guys actually need to have a discussion on the most trivial problem ever ?

>> No.6043557

56-42=14
42-30=12
30-20=10
20-8= 12

So, 3x4=12. The answer is 4. All of you need to get the fuck off /sci/

>> No.6044003

>>6041986

bravo vince

>> No.6044011

3=3 obviously
also 3=6, 3=9, and 3=8-5=56-20=36
exercise: show that 3=23

>> No.6044017

>>6041628

5 * 3 != 20

3 * 0 = 0

This is retarded

>> No.6044022
File: 55 KB, 640x640, 1379902985820.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6044022

>>6044017
This is your problem.

>> No.6044033

>>6044022
what's the other kind?

>> No.6044037
File: 959 KB, 448x352, Joke-Goes-Over-Your-Head-Star-Trek-Gif.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6044037

>>6044033

>> No.6044044

>>6041628
Considering the /sci/ response i'm starting to believe this is a secret autism test

>> No.6044050

>>6044037
go away wesley

>> No.6044055

>>6044050
See, it's funny because that's an animated gif of an android that's obviously still under development, an "incomplete Data".

>> No.6044125

>>6044055
le double entendre

>> No.6044263

>>6044037
>gif
absolutely disgusting

>> No.6044273
File: 428 KB, 1680x1050, implying screenshots.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6044273

>>6041808

>> No.6044733

>>6044022
>assumptions

>> No.6044755

>>6044037

Looks like it bounced off her shoulder.

>> No.6044850

>>6044037
joke went over you're head, ironically

>> No.6044858

>>6044273
What an unnecessarily difficult way to go about faking a screenshot.

>> No.6044919

>>6044858
>difficult

It takes less than 10 seconds.

>> No.6044924

>>6044919
Not if you're only using a mouse and no keyboard.

>> No.6044958

>>6041718
>why not arrows?

"8 implies 56"?

>> No.6044963

>>6041628

Another legitimate answer is 15. 5*3 = 15.

>> No.6044993

if P is false then P->Q is always true, regardless of Q. Therefore, since 8!=56, all answers to the question are equally correct.

>> No.6045005

It's 12.

You are literally retarded if you believe anything else.

>> No.6046399

I don't know how you could be this stupid OP.

I guess some people are just insecure about their intelligence and displeased by the fact that they'll never make any contributions to a stem field so they go on 4chan making condescending threads to people who have involentarily had an inferior education in mathematics due to whatever scenario they were born into.