/Sci/ Ylyl Thread

[Anonymous No.8568034]

Post /sci/ related memes and funny content.

[Anonymous No.8568071]

[Anonymous No.8568076]

[Anonymous No.8568080]

[Anonymous No.8568082]

[Anonymous No.8568083]

[Anonymous No.8568084]

[Anonymous No.8568089]

>>8568071
Coming from /sci/ too lmao

[Anonymous No.8568098]

>>8568034
This is still one of my all time favorite posts

[Anonymous No.8568153]

>>8568071
I absolutely hate those stupid Facebook pages. Because Facebook is about "muh money", scrolling over a video for more than three seconds counts as a view, so if you are someone who scrolls though their content slowly, you are contributing to the problem, and stolen youtube videos are prominent on Facebook.

Facebook is a cancerous website that deserves to die or be drastically fixed.

[Anonymous No.8568157]

>>8568089
This

[Anonymous No.8568310]

[Anonymous No.8568403]

[Anonymous No.8568481]

>>8568034

Can somebody explain this to me, or point me to a relevant wiki link

[sauerkraut !!fK/633ZUwLX No.8568488]

>>8568034

[sauerkraut !!fK/633ZUwLX No.8568491]

>>8568310
That's funny, but it is taken from a writing mocking econometrics.

Original https://www.uibk.ac.at/econometrics/lit/siegfried_jpe_70.pdf

[Anonymous No.8568532]

>>8568082
this one always makes me chuckle

[Anonymous No.8569042]

[Anonymous No.8569044]

[Anonymous No.8569045]

[Anonymous No.8569048]

[Anonymous No.8569049]

[Anonymous No.8569051]

[Anonymous No.8569052]

[Anonymous No.8569054]

[Anonymous No.8569055]

[Anonymous No.8569057]

[Anonymous No.8569059]

[Anonymous No.8569061]

>fap thread
>base 12

[Anonymous No.8569065]

>>8568076
source

[Anonymous No.8569355]

[Anonymous No.8569374]

>>8569042
I love this one because it has two levels of humor:
On the surface it's the old joke that 1+2+...=-1/12, but at the deeper level it pokes fun at mathematicians' attempts to justify the utility of their subject.

[Anonymous No.8569386]

>>8569045
fucking kek

[Anonymous No.8569404]

all of these are hardly funny
:/

[Anonymous No.8569408]

[Anonymous No.8569428]

>>8569408
You laugh you lose, not you cringe you lose.

Unfortunately I was in that thread and I was the first to tell OP how fucking cringey his shit was.

[Anonymous No.8569430]

>>8569404
you probably just dont understand them

[Anonymous No.8569433]

>>8569404
>all of these are hardly funny
fuck off i kek hard at most of these.

[Anonymous No.8569436]

>>8569051
Hey, that was me!

That class was fucking amazing. Natural arithmetic (first topic) and Complex arithmetic (last topic) were the two best parts about it. Funny enough, it is actually way harder to prove that x+12 = 15 if x=13 in the natural numbers than in the complex numbers because for the complex numbers addition is defined through a function that you can simply evaluate, but in the natural numbers addition is defined recursively and follows only two very weak axioms and you can only prove anything with those two axioms by flexing your logic muscles until they break.

[Anonymous No.8569444]

>>8568481
A guy really won the Fields Medal for computing some homology groups. I was reading about it in "modern math in light of the fields medals." I'll look it up when I get home to the book.

[Anonymous No.8569447]

[Anonymous No.8569451]

[Anonymous No.8569453]

>>8568083
fuck me

[Anonymous No.8569454]

[Anonymous No.8569457]

[Anonymous No.8569459]

the fucking pic though kek

[Anonymous No.8569460]

[Anonymous No.8569463]

[Anonymous No.8569464]

[Anonymous No.8569466]

[Anonymous No.8569467]

[Anonymous No.8569468]

[Anonymous No.8569609]

>>8569374
I think it just makes fun of mathematicians in general.

The whole -1/12 requires a lot of stretch logic to reach, and series in general are actually really dumb.

[Anonymous No.8569627]

>>8569464
Kek

[Anonymous No.8569629]

>>8569468
> dude infinity lmao
Dying

[Anonymous No.8569659]

>>8568083
>"Without five I couldn't even count to six."
>mfw
what am I doing with my life

[Anonymous No.8569684]

>>8568481
>>8569444
Found it. I'm pretty sure the post is making fun of this stuff.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homotopy_groups_of_spheres

Secifically the work of Hurwicz.

[Anonymous No.8569901]

>>8569659
It's winter break. Kick back and enjoy the fact that the fall semester is done :)

[Anonymous No.8569933]

[Anonymous No.8570109]

>>8569464
Is this legit?

[Anonymous No.8570146]

>>8569054
This is the very reason I don't share singular open problems that I'm stuck on. Like it's a property of a specific constant or function, you can't share that shit on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.8570149]

>>8568034
True story: I once met a nukephys undergrad who believed that a generic exponential curve would "level off eventually". Thats probably the single most disastrous misconception somebody working with nuclear material could have.

[Anonymous No.8570271]

>>8570109
Yup, Borwein Integrals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borwein_integral

[Anonymous No.8570322]

[Anonymous No.8570323]

[Anonymous No.8570324]

[Anonymous No.8570326]

[Anonymous No.8570613]

>>8570326
Oh yeah, been following this madman on the better chan for a while.

I fucking love him.

[Anonymous No.8570639]

>>8570613
what chan might that be

[Anonymous No.8570659]

>>8570639
http://EIGHTch.net/agdg/res/26682.html

[Anonymous No.8570662]

>>8570149
Well, they were an undergrad. What did you expect?

[Anonymous No.8570669]

>>8570326
>>8570613
>>8570639
Lol I know this guy from IRC.

[Anonymous No.8570707]

>>8568084
This is great.

[Anonymous No.8570713]

>>8569460
But he's right.

[Anonymous No.8570825]

>>8570149

well he's not wrong, if you let the reaction go critical it will level off EVENTUALLY
much good it will do you

[Anonymous No.8570830]

>>8568310
nice

[Anonymous No.8570877]

stole this sentence from a friend's facebook page and posted it on /sci/ for giggles.

[Anonymous No.8570879]

[Anonymous No.8570882]

>>8569460
can someobody explain that one pls?

[Anonymous No.8570933]

>>8570882
They were written in the 1950's by a soviet scientist and his assistant to summarise most of the physics knowledge.
Only a soviet would say it's all you need in physics because although the books are really good and it can be a national pride, the very concise style and the inherent harshness make it a bad stand-alone choice.

[Anonymous No.8570955]

>>8569460
>>8570933
>>8570882
some trivia: landau died in 1968, before they wrote the second last book, so lifschitz had to write the last two books with another theoretical physicist. pretty sad. rip landau

[Anonymous No.8571015]

>>8568153
^this

[Anonymous No.8571025]

[Anonymous No.8571031]

>>8568488
You do realise minutes are a measure of distance as well, as long as you're talking about light? 8 minutes per hour is ~5*10^7 m/s.

[Anonymous No.8571051]

>>8571031
8 MINUTES per HOUR does NOT give a value of METRES per SECOND. sorry to tell you this.

[Anonymous No.8571058]

>>8571051
Sorry, it does.

c is a conversion factor for seconds into meters, and it's used as such in cosmology all the time (ever hear of lightyears/years?). Converting the minutes into meters and the hours into seconds will give you a value of meters per second, retard.

This is basic special relativity. Check out the opening pages of Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler if you have trouble understanding this.

[Anonymous No.8571060]

>>8571058
I'm not that guy, but a lightyear is a measure of distance and a year is a measure in time. The most you can ever get is 1 lightyear/year because [math]c[/math] is the speed limit of the universe.

[Anonymous No.8571061]

>>8569464
As an engineer I want to say : "fuck you, that's close enough"

[Anonymous No.8571077]

>>8571060
First off, lightyears are a measure of length.

Second, space and time are one substance. The units of the spacetime interval are both length and time, related by the conversion factor c.

Year and lightyear are used almost interchangeably in cosmology (when one is talking about light, a condition I specified above), because one talks about spacetime intervals and not "simple" length at scales where relativity needs to be considered (e.g. 5*10^7 m/s).

My point is clear to anyone who knows anything about special relativity.

[Anonymous No.8571096]

>>8571077
>My point is clear to anyone who knows anything about special relativity.

Clearly, you don't fully understand it. That's okay, kiddo. The world needs dishwashers too.

[Anonymous No.8571136]

>>8571051 >>8571060 Sorry, but >>8571031 >>8571058 is CORRECT. You use c to convert seconds into metres in relativity, so that a metric remains dimensionally consistent, and spacetime diagrams make sense as the "absolute" distance. If something veers towards the time axis, it is called timelike and if it veers towards any of the spatial axes, is is called spacelike. In astronomical distances/speeds, it is very convenient to use the so-called "natural units" whereby you express time and mass as distances. It's just a convention that makes a lot of sense, no one is saying seconds physically ARE metres.

[Anonymous No.8571149]

>>8571136
Thanks bro

[Anonymous No.8571150]

>>8571136
>>8571149
What's the formula, then? I would google it, but asking is more conversational.

[Anonymous No.8571172]

>>8571150
1 second = ~3 * 10^8 m, obviously...

[Anonymous No.8571182]

>>8571149
No problem, always good to spread information

>>8571150
Multiply whatever time you have by c. It's that simple.

[Anonymous No.8571188]

>>8571172
>>8571182
Ok so let's see if I understand this. Since [math]c[/math] is measured in [math]\left[\frac{m}{s}\right],[/math] we then just say that this is equal to [math]c \times \left[\frac{m}{s}\right] \Leftrightarrow [s] = c \times [m].[/math] Similarily, if we have a thing, let's call it [math]a[/math], that measures something in [math]\left[\frac{f_1(u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5,u_6,u_7)}{f_2(u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5,u_6,u_7)}\right],[/math] where [math]u_i[/math] is a standard measurement unit for [math]1 \le i \le 7,[/math] and [math]f_1[/math] and [math]f_2[/math] are functions of (potentially) seven variables, then you have that [math][f_2(u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5,u_6,u_7)] = a \times [f_1(u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5,u_6,u_7)]?[/math] I'm just trying to generalise here. Sorry if I'm kind of stupid.

[Anonymous No.8571200]

>>8571188
You completely over complicated that. In relativity the objects you use are metrics which are tensors, and not simple functions. So you would selectively multiply the time component of said metric by c and it would be dimensionally equivalent to the spatial components.
It's not a prefactor of a general function (tensors) but rather of the time component. In General Relativity, this is also done for the mass and energy terms in a tensor.

[Anonymous No.8571353]

>>8571025
badass mofucka

[Anonymous No.8571486]

>>8570613
Not so better if you're here

[Anonymous No.8572647]

>>8568071
/sci/ in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.8572663]

>>8569051
Not even gonna lie, this is basically how I felt when I was doing babby tier proofs in my foundations class. It was really cool seeing the basis for a bunch of ideas that I had taken for granted for so long.
>>8570326
Fucking wow

[Anonymous No.8572670]

incoming MEMES

[Anonymous No.8572672]

[Anonymous No.8572675]

[Anonymous No.8572677]

[Anonymous No.8572681]

[Anonymous No.8572684]

[Anonymous No.8572686]

[Anonymous No.8572689]

>>8572681
mat. sci. humor. love it

[Anonymous No.8572692]

>>8572681
You mean aluminium

[Anonymous No.8572699]

>>8572681
>>8572672
>>8572670
kek

[Anonymous No.8572702]

>>8571061
kek

[Anonymous No.8572759]

>>8569468
These crack me up every time

[Anonymous No.8572790]

anyone have that one that goes something like: "Applied mathemafuckers trying to take my work and make it less pure, get out of my field"

[Anonymous No.8572840]

>>8569468
classic

[Anonymous No.8572908]

>>8572686
>Renormalization in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.8572912]

>>8572790
>t. retard who didn't check the OP

[Anonymous No.8572932]

>>8572912

no, it's different.
some kind of a comic

[Anonymous No.8573220]

>>8572790
>>8572932

[Anonymous No.8573259]

>>8570323
>suddenly this old man in a cardigan sweater comes out of fucking nowhere and starts slapping the shit out of him

[Anonymous No.8573264]

>>8570326
I uh... need to know the name of this game... for... uh... research purposes

[Anonymous No.8573279]

>>8573264
>hurrrrr for research porpoises xDDDDDDDDDD
kys faggot

[Anonymous No.8573350]

>>8573279
Be nice to my friend over from reddit faggot.

[Anonymous No.8573826]

>>8569444
>>8569684

Thanks mate, much appreciated

[Anonymous No.8574696]

[Anonymous No.8574713]

>>8574696
tfw i know the chem book this comes from

[Anonymous No.8574730]

>>8569468
>yellowed.com

gets me everytime

[Anonymous No.8574864]

>>8569404
I agree
kind of like big bazinga theory-tier humour

I mean I've laughed at a few but shit like this:
>>8569355
where the guy is just saying le unnecessary mathsy shit in a normal situation isn't funny

[Anonymous No.8576342]

bump