/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7255029]

>So anon, I heard you like math. Why?

[Anonymous No.7255033]

you know that feeling when you're really in it? when you're directly focused and tuned out to the rest of the world around you? that's why.

[Anonymous No.7255975]

>>7255033
In other words, you like it because autism.

[Anonymous No.7255989]

>>7255033
are you feeling it now, mr. krabs?

[Anonymous No.7256193]

>>7255029
Because girls are gross :)

[Anonymous No.7256201]

Because the objectivity of math was the only thing offering me stability during a traumatic childhood with a psychotic mother.

[Anonymous No.7256222]

My bad for wanting to expand human civilization. Maybe you should try thinking about the future of mankind instead of getting drunk every night with your sorority sisters and claiming rape on any unfortunate guy that you hooked up with while you were blackout drunk.

>inb4 "autism"
>implying this isn't the future of the majority of girls

[Anonymous No.7256226]

Math is to science in general what music theory is to music , annoying and hard , but when you master it you can do incredible things with it.

[Anonymous No.7256239]

Cause I like feeling superior to other people and I'm not good at other things.

/thread

[Anonymous No.7256408]

>>7256239
>implying other people give a fuck about math
You are the reason why math departments are unwelcoming places to people who have what it takes but can't be bothered with the infinite sadness of academic autism.

[Anonymous No.7256598]

>>7256408
I think he's joking but even if he was serious you seem to be mad at math separately from this thread. I'm sorry that people are sometimes shitty when they are better at something than average. Self-fart smelling is popular especially in academia. I don't know what to tell you other than don't let it get to you and lots of us aren't like that.

[Anonymous No.7256636]

The word autism is going to be posted a lot in this thread.

[Anonymous No.7256644]

Why is /sci/ so full of angry virgins

[Anonymous No.7256936]

>>7256226
I like this description very much.

[Anonymous No.7257680]

>>7256201
Math isn't objective though. Axioms are just made up arbitrary rules.

[Anonymous No.7257688]

>>7255975
he found something that gives his life meaning, something he truly loves and is dedicated about.

I dont see the difference between someone who loves math, and for example, someone who likes to make clocks (a master clocksmith)

[Anonymous No.7257695]

Because I know in which function space I have to search for the function which makes your fucking smartphone being able to even establish a connection with the internetz.

[Anonymous No.7257698]

>>7257680
are u stupid in the head?

[Anonymous No.7257699]

You know that moment, when all these ideas click together, like a million pieces of a puzzle, and your overwhelmed with just how perfect it is, how beautiful it is.

That's why I like math, and if you've never experienced that, I feel bad for you.

[Anonymous No.7257713]

>>7257680
>axioms
>arbitrary

wrong board pal

[Anonymous No.7257718]

>>7257680
Math doesn't need axioms.

[Anonymous No.7257723]

>>7257680
Brouwer please go to sleep

[Anonymous No.7257800]

>>7257680
sci has some pretty funny shitposting sometimes

[Anonymous No.7257812]

>>7257680
Axioms are arbitrary, math is not. That is, the rules we pick are arbitrary, the results of picking those rules are not.

>>7257713
They are arbitrary, by definition.

>>7257718
u wot m8

[Anonymous No.7257813]

>>7257812
Godel proved that it is not feasible to base math on a set of axioms.

[Anonymous No.7257814]

>>7257812
The rules of math are not arbitrary. They describe nature.

[Anonymous No.7257929]

>>7257813
No he didn't. He proved that in any particular system of axioms, there exist true statements about the natural numbers that cannot be proven to be true.

That has absolutely literally nothing to do with what you said.

>>7257814
>The rules of math are not arbitrary.
Yes they are.
>They describe nature.
They are pretty good at that, yes.

[Anonymous No.7257949]

>>7257929
>arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
so no, axioms are not arbitrary, they're constrained by real world observation.

[Anonymous No.7257951]

>>7257929

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
>The two results are widely interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible

Why do you continue to comment? Are you so proud of showing off your ignorance?

[Anonymous No.7258033]

>>7255033
Yea, in a way math can be very relaxing. It takes your mind away from everything else to a world full of logic and beaty.

[Anonymous No.7258036]

>>7256226
>beautiful and easy
ftfy

[Anonymous No.7258039]

>>7255033
Yea, in a way math can be very relaxing. It takes your mind away from everything else to a world full of logic and beauty.

[Anonymous No.7259046]

>>7255029

I'd reply.

The volume of a generalized cylinder has been known for thousands of years, but you won’t know the volume of mine until tonight.

[Anonymous No.7259071]

>>7255029
Anyone here like math enough to solve this one?

You have 3x4 box.
A 3x4 box can be put together with:
2 1-box's
2 2-box's
2 3-box's
>pic ralated

This also works with 4x5
2 1-box's
2 2-box's
2 3-box's
2 4-box's

How do you prove it works for all following? 5x6, 6x7, etc n x (n+1)

[Anonymous No.7259077]

>>7259071

proof by induction

[Anonymous No.7259101]

>>7259071
Every single iteration beyond the first one scales the box up from the original 1x2

[Anonymous No.7259105]

>>7259077
I can visually explain why it works,
mathematically I would have no idea where to start

something like:
3x4 = 12 4x5 = 20
adding 2 4-box's is equal to 8 units.
20-12 = 8.

sorry, haven't taken any courses that require proofs

[Anonymous No.7259117]

>>7255033
>>7256222
>>7256201
>>7256226
>>7256936
>>7257688
>>7257695
>>7257699
>>7258036
>>7258039

what the fuck are you talking about you fucking edgy autists, you don't really ''enjoy'' math you faggots just want to pretend that you are smarter than the average person, protip: you're probably not.
no one gives a shit about you you childish fags
wake up from your dreams nerds

[Anonymous No.7259206]

>>7259117
Kind of a bummer that you have no clue what math is about...

I absolutely love math. The abstractions let me work in absolute purity, without worrying about the world. Are you kind of turned on by the philosophical nature governing the properties of the structures we model reality with? What makes these structures so fundamental? Why is it that collections of similar objects have so much "necessary" structure?

What is the unifying principle? Surely none if this can be fundamental to reality?

These questions have driven the great mathematical minds in humanity's history, my friend.

[Anonymous No.7259218]

>>7259071
The expressions 2*1+2*2+2*3...2*n=n(n+1)
divide both sides by two and you get:
1+2+3...n=[n(n+1)]/2

We can prove this by saying a function s(n) for the sum of 1 to n is
s(n)= 1+2+ 3+... +(n-1)+n
2s(n)=1+2+3+... +(n-1)+n+
n+(n-1)+(n-2)+...+2+1
Notice the term pairings, I separated the right side into two rows to illustrate this
2s(n)=(1 + n) + (2 + n-1) + (3 + n-2) + ... + (n-1 + 2) + (n + 1)
2s(n)= (n+1) +(n+1) +(n+1) +... +(n+1) +(n+1)
there are n terms, so
2s(n)=n(n+1)
and s(n)=[n(n+1)]/2

I'm not sure if the proof is exactly mathematically valid, I'm just a lowly calc 1 student.

[Anonymous No.7259232]

I like math because math don't cheats me with my own brother.

[Anonymous No.7259249]

>>7255029
>So anon, I heard you like math. Why?
It's more fun than monopoly.

[Anonymous No.7259627]

>>7257949
go find me an infinite cross product in nature. we do need to understand them to understand the consistency of our models for physical and other phenomena, but you are derping if you think there is an axiom of choice "out there" or not.

Even go find me a natural object that distinguishes "elementhood" and "subsethood". These are mathematical concepts, and each way of envisioning them has led to different axiom system - mereological, ZFC like, constructive, etc. all coming from relatively similar intuitions about nature. The precise reason it is unclear exactly what we are looking at foundationally is because these things are inherently mathematical and not natural.

[Anonymous No.7259651]

>>7259117

[Anonymous No.7259661]

>>7259071
Well, I sort of did what the calc 1 guy did in >>7259218

What I noticed:
summation of 3 = 3+2+1 = 6
2 * summation 3 = 12
3*4 = 12
2*summation 3 = 3*4
Supposedly this works for any n where 2*summation n = n*n+1
----
So what is the summation of n?
summation n = 1 + 2 + ... + n-1 + n
(rewritten, going in reverse) summation n = n + n-1 + ... + 2 + 1
summation n + summation n = n+1 + n+1 + ... + n+1 + n+1
2*summation n = n(n+1), which is what we wanted to prove.
----
Alternatively, googling some stuff, if it was given that the summation of values of k from k=1 to n = (n^2*n)/2, it becomes easily recognizable that 2*(n^2*n)/2 = (n^2)*n = n(n+1)

[Anonymous No.7259664]

>>7259627
only this guy is right in this thread

[Anonymous No.7259668]

>>7259206

>he cares about the whys

you have a lot to learn, my child.

[Anonymous No.7259670]

>>7259661
the last line should read "the summation of values of k from k=1 to n is equivalent to ..."

[Anonymous No.7259714]

>>7259670
>>7259661
Clever.
What about: >>>7259677

[Anonymous No.7259999]

>>7257951
Are you trolling or just retarded?

[Anonymous No.7260023]

>>7255033
I love this feel.
I remember feeling it the first time I understood how the plus sign worked. That moment when it clicked, and I was like, OH SHIT I UNDERSAND THIS NOW!
Been into math ever since.

[Anonymous No.7260100]

>>7255029
Because math is useful and fun to do.

As simple as that dear OP.