YLYL /sci/ edition

[Anonymous No.9126336]

[Anonymous No.9126337]

>>9126336

[Anonymous No.9126338]

>>9126337

[Anonymous No.9126339]

>>9126337
Do mathematics textbooks go downhill once you step out the palace that is Rudin?

[Anonymous No.9126340]

>>9126338

[Anonymous No.9126342]

>>9126339
What do you mean "go downhill?"

[Anonymous No.9126344]

>>9126338
I don't get it, and what is this about? Sauce?

[Anonymous No.9126348]

[Anonymous No.9126351]

>>9126348

[Anonymous No.9126355]

>>9126344
Piper Harron wrote a racist and sexist blog post for the American Mathematical Society.
>http://blogs.ams.org/inclusionexclusion/2017/05/11/get-out-the-way/

Naturally, a lot people were pissed off, and they started to research her qualifications.
>http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/cv/

That pic was from her PhD thesis which you can read online, and it is filled with way more examples of nonsense.
>http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf

[Anonymous No.9126359]

>welcome students to first day of Real Analysis II course
>force everyone to fill out a survey so they know their current privilege level
>hand out syllabus
>rant about how mathematics is racist

[Anonymous No.9126378]

>>9126348
>someone with extensive math qualifications
>"the sum of all positive intergers is -1/12"
>facebook dwelling normalfags with high school math qualifications, if that
>"positive + positive can't equal 0 stop lying"
Really boils the piss

[Anonymous No.9126391]

[Anonymous No.9126399]

>>9126355

She is right though. If society had its natural way, only white aryan chads and blondes would be on the top of society.

[Anonymous No.9126411]

[Anonymous No.9126413]

[Anonymous No.9126414]

[Anonymous No.9126415]

[Anonymous No.9126416]

[Anonymous No.9126417]

[Anonymous No.9126418]

[Anonymous No.9126421]

Really bad thread.

[Anonymous No.9126422]

>>9126342
I'm using stewart's book for my calculus go away.

[Anonymous No.9126431]

>>9126422
>>9126342
Stewarts book on Galois is one of the best there is, but I am a self acknowledged brainlet

[Anonymous No.9126445]

>>9126378
>>9126348
>yfw you're both brainlets and you realize ramanujan has as many math qualifications as the facebook losers

[Anonymous No.9126454]

>>9126378
>"the sum of all positive intergers is -1/12"
no one with extensive math qualifications would say this.

the sum of all positive integers is divergent. using analytic continuation (specifically the Ramanujan summation), we can assign it a value of -1/12.

this is NOT THE SUM. this is a value assigned to it using a different method.

[Anonymous No.9126464]

>>9126431
Not the same Stewart

[Anonymous No.9126525]

>>9126422
Yeah, no. Look up who wrote your books.

[Anonymous No.9126542]

[Anonymous No.9126999]

>>9126359
>math is not apolitical

[Anonymous No.9127111]

>>9126421
>last one's not "looking at aziroazide azide"
The cranium's not expanded enough.

[Anonymous No.9127140]

>>9126342
(((shellah)))

[Anonymous No.9127408]

>>9126340
My nigga Integrate

[Anonymous No.9127422]

>>9127111
>not making FOOF go FOOF

[Anonymous No.9127450]

>>9126337
This isn't funny. If I saw that in one of my textbooks I'd be fucking pissed.

[Anonymous No.9127462]

>>9126378
>>9126445
It's right in physics, which is what matters. If the math doesn't work, you use your tickled temples to find a way to make it work. Pic related.

I think the reason that guy's video gets so much shit is because he does something that he says should be obvious but I think is actually wrong. He said something like, an infinite sequence of 0,1,0,1,0,1 would give a result of 1/2 once computed. But that isn't right... right?

[Anonymous No.9127465]

>>9126378
>>9126445
It's right in physics, which is what matters. If the math doesn't work, you tickle your temples and find a way to make it work. Pic related.

I think the reason that guy's video gets so much shit is because he does something that he says should be obvious but I think is actually wrong. He said something like, an infinite sequence of 0,1,0,1,0,1 would give a result of 1/2 once computed. But that isn't right... right?

[Anonymous No.9127490]

>>9126338
jesus christ what the fuck

[Anonymous No.9127492]

>>9127490
see >>9126355

[Anonymous No.9127494]

http://web.mst.edu/~lmhall/WhatToDoWhenTrisectorComes.pdf

Funniest thing I've ever read.

[Anonymous No.9127512]

>>9126355
There appear to have been absolutely no repercussions for her idiocy. Why?

[Anonymous No.9127544]

>>9127512
I think she is a "family hire." That's the only reason I can think of. Pic related is her husband.

[Anonymous No.9127548]

>>9126337
People sperging out about this without seeing what it's referring to are brainlets. There's literally nothing wrong with writing this if the proof is obvious.

[Anonymous No.9127666]

>>9126417
That's pretty good

[Anonymous No.9127720]

>>9126525
My calculus book author is Ron Larson.
Stewarts book was algebra and trigonometry.

[Anonymous No.9127870]

>>9127465
Thing is, your traditional view of how math works doesn't have to apply across the board. Math isn't always as universal as people say, really. As an example - when doing real calculations, there is no square root of negative numbers, but in certain circumstances, imaginary numbers are used and are very useful for getting real life applicable results.

For the 1/2 sum, it's just a Ceasaro sum.

[Anonymous No.9127892]

>>9127408

I think that's the joke. Biologists are so inept at mathematics that they don't know about numeric integration methods, so they "invent" them.

[Anonymous No.9127896]

>>9127892
I think it might actually make sense to not integrate there. The functions appearing there are likely to not be perfect/continuous ones, but messy ones of sorts. I dunno without reading the entire paper desu.

[Anonymous No.9127898]

>>9127896

Most numerical methods would still do just fine even if the function isn't strictly continuous.

[Anonymous No.9127937]

>>9127892
>>9127898
What if it spikes and settles all over the place at random intervals so that its shape is a constantly-changing jumbled mess? How would they know what to do then?

[Anonymous No.9127940]

>>9127937

Have an extremely small step and consider excluding values if the difference between the values at the two points are unrealistically high.

[Anonymous No.9128015]

>>9127892
Imagine if someone had their mathematician friend bang that out for them in like an hour. The paper would start out like this one, but go much further in terms of complexity and length. You'd be able to get dozens of pages without any computations or formulae. And, right before the conclusion, you could make a small leap of logic and present the easy-to-use formula that computes definite integrals in seconds - described using very simple English and with no symbols or numbers, of course.

Do you think the professors could be so ignorant that they'd accept it?

[Anonymous No.9128092]

>>9126391
Source?

[Anonymous No.9128188]

>>9126399
>Le aryan meme
There is not ONE blonde important scientific figure. Get fucked sub-haireds

[Anonymous No.9128375]

>>9128092
Google is a thing.

its from supergravity by freedman

[Anonymous No.9128527]

>>9126399
Luckily intelligent societies are different in their choosing of survivals than those of animals, so intellect and other abilities are appreciated instead of only the ability to pass down genes.

Too bad that one's not going well for you either :c

[Anonymous No.9128542]

>>9126422
Was no help to me whatsoever, just glad i can sell it on to people who think it is useful.

[Anonymous No.9128607]

[Anonymous No.9128609]

[Anonymous No.9128613]

>>9128607
>unfinished rubik's cube in the back
Made me giggle

[Anonymous No.9128646]

[Anonymous No.9128648]

[Anonymous No.9128650]

[Anonymous No.9128657]

[Anonymous No.9128660]

[Anonymous No.9128662]

[Anonymous No.9128665]

>>9128609
>top row an infinite number of people die
>bottom row you save 1/12th of a person

no contest

[Anonymous No.9128667]

[Anonymous No.9128673]

[Anonymous No.9128675]

>>9128667

[Anonymous No.9128678]

[Anonymous No.9128679]

>>9127512
it's illegal to take actions against blacks or women

[Anonymous No.9128680]

[Anonymous No.9128684]

[Anonymous No.9128686]

[Anonymous No.9128687]

[Anonymous No.9128691]

[Anonymous No.9128694]

[Anonymous No.9128701]

[Anonymous No.9128704]

[Anonymous No.9128705]

[Anonymous No.9128752]

>>9128660
im here to L not to R

[Anonymous No.9128807]

>>9128752
then raugh

[Anonymous No.9128838]

>>9126338
>I don't like handlebars, doesn't matter why
That part got me

[Anonymous No.9128852]

>>9128665
Wrong. Applying the Riemann zeta function to the top track saves 1/2 of a person. This doesn't mean you should take the top track though as tinkering with the bottom track and spacing out the victims, one can change 1 + 2 + 3 +... into 1 + ( 1 + 1 ) + (1 + 1 + 1) + ... Since addition is commutative we can remove the () and get the same sequence as the top row. This means that it doesn't matter which track you take as each saves 1/2 of a life. The optimal approach is actually to attempt multi-track drifting as successful doing so will save an entire life

[Anonymous No.9128873]

>>9126421
What level is "using the glassware to drink out of?"

[Anonymous No.9128981]

>>9126351
Where is the joke

[Anonymous No.9129059]

>>9128981
The joke is a meme based off of reddit, alot of normalfags use it.

It is a variation of the original meme: >He protec he attac

I forgot how it ends although.

[Anonymous No.9129137]

>>9127937
numerical methods exist for exactly these situations
these biologists are just fucking inept and the "journal" who published this "research" should be shut down

[Anonymous No.9129142]

>>9128015
>a small leap of logic
>in a mathematics paper
uhh

[Anonymous No.9129149]

>>9126542
i want to strangle who ever wrote this heresy

[Anonymous No.9129481]

>>9126340
is that the re-invention of integrals by some clueless biologist?

[Anonymous No.9129756]

>>9128648
based

[Anonymous No.9129769]

>>9127892
>>9129481
Physician not biologist.

[Anonymous No.9129800]

>>9126336

[Anonymous No.9129829]

>>9129142
>mathematics paper
It's biology.

[Anonymous No.9130000]

>>9129481
Best thing is it isn't even integration, it is a bastardised version of simpsons rule

[Anonymous No.9130022]

>>9126355
>BA in romance languages
>MA in mathematics
How did that happen?

[Anonymous No.9130029]

>>9130000
>simpsons rule
If only, it's just the trapezoid rule only without the realization that a rectangle with a right triangle stuck on top is a trapezoid.

So it's the rectangle-with-triangle-on-top rule.

[Anonymous No.9130038]

>>9128852
my sides

[Anonymous No.9130060]

>>9126416
holy shit this is bad

[Anonymous No.9130064]

>>9128852
>>9128609
what arrangement would maximize the amount of lives saved? Is higher than 0.5 possible?

[Anonymous No.9130071]

>>9128680
that's hot

[Anonymous No.9130266]

[Anonymous No.9130394]

>>9128704
>readily available

[Anonymous No.9130410]

>>9128686
Topkek

[Anonymous No.9130411]

>>9128667
>the friends exist in groups determined by race
Was he marking prisoners' scripts?

[Anonymous No.9130412]

>>9128660
He's not wrong. Sure, it's a bland and obvious statement, but is it funny?

[Anonymous No.9130414]

>>9126340

[Anonymous No.9130417]

>>9126359
I think he also wrote this:

http://www.colorado.edu/eer/research/documents/Katz-PersonalStatement-IBLFuture2017.pdf

This guy is an ideologue.

[Anonymous No.9130425]

http://blogs.ams.org/inclusionexclusion/2017/05/04/supremumsupremacy/

Read Johan Richter's comment response, and then read what Brian Katz said in the same comment thread.

[Anonymous No.9130770]

>>9126359
God I hate politics so much

[Anonymous No.9130786]

>>9128648
le bazed polish peoplles xDDD

[Anonymous No.9130811]

>>9130414
Theres also the chemistry students' method: draw the function graph, cut it out and weigh the paper.

[Anonymous No.9130908]

>>9130811
hey man that works really well for the application

[Anonymous No.9131057]

check'em

[Anonymous No.9131174]

>>9126339
>Rudin
ha

[Anonymous No.9131350]

>>9130811
>draw the function graph, cut it out and weigh the paper.
No way this is a joke, right?

[Anonymous No.9131352]

>>9131350
>No way this is a joke, right?
This is a joke*

[Anonymous No.9131353]

>>9131350
It's really not. Ive done it before

[Anonymous No.9131354]

>>9128607
Reminds me of the classic

[Anonymous No.9131366]

>>9131350
it is quite a few step above approximating the function with a single rectangle

[Anonymous No.9131367]

>>9131353
That's really sad. Do you at least know how to integrate properly?

[Anonymous No.9131375]

>>9129481
Welcome, newfriend.

[Anonymous No.9131481]

>>9131057

[Anonymous No.9131599]

>>9131350
It's actually more rigorous than proving it mathematically, since experimental fact is more convincing than an abstract proof

[Anonymous No.9131646]

>>9131350
People did do this a lot with NMR and shit
It's easier to just get the integral of the signal that way instead of looking for a function that approximates the signal and integrating
it sounds stupid but the presentation is here is oversimplified

[Anonymous No.9131647]

>>9131646
*unless you are using a computer and software, which people are mostly doing nowadays

[Anonymous No.9131824]

>>9128607
>>9131354

[Anonymous No.9132156]

>>9126348
The Riemann Zeta function does equal -1/12 at x = -1. The difference is that there are retards who claim that the sum of all positive integers equals -1/12.

[Anonymous No.9132963]

>>9126342
Can anyone tell me what these authors wrote and the quality of the books?

[Anonymous No.9133117]

>>9132963
You quoted me, and I'll type them out for you.

Stewart: shit you should have learned in high school: basic algebra/trig/calc
Larson: college level calculus with the autism of spivak et al
Ross: baby level real analysis
Abott: "Understanding Analysis" one step above Ross and one below Bartle
Bartle: a very good real analysis book with Rudin's autism
Rudin: the bible of undergraduate real analysis
Royden: graduate level real analysis/variables
Shelah: see>>9126336 and >>9126337

[Anonymous No.9133120]

>>9133117
>Larson: college level calculus with the autism of spivak et al
should say withOUT the autism...
>Bartle: a very good real analysis book with Rudin's autism
should say withOUT the autism...

[Anonymous No.9133213]

>>9133120
Is Larson really college level?
I always assumed it was just a rather good high school book.

[Anonymous No.9133434]

>>9128852
Gave me 3 good laughs, good job anon.

[Anonymous No.9133445]

>>9126348
how in the hell is the sum of all natural numbers -1/12?
Explain this.

[Anonymous No.9133463]

>>9126378
But it's true.
2 positive integers cannot ever equal a negative integer.
1 + 1 =/= 0

You would have to be functionally retarded to not understand such rudimentary logic.

[Anonymous No.9133546]

>>9131481
I don't know why this always makes me smile

[Anonymous No.9133583]

>>9126342
Remember, you have to read these charts backward

[Anonymous No.9133589]

>>9128607
Everytime
>>9131824
Never once

[Anonymous No.9133599]

>>9133445
Google "Analytic Continuation of the Riemann Zeta Function at s=-1"

[Anonymous No.9133603]

>>9133599
I still don't understand how the SUM of all positive integers could possibly equal a negative integer. That is a clear logical impossibility.

[Anonymous No.9133605]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBaVwwuErmU

[Anonymous No.9134212]

>>9133603
its not the real sum, its a number that under certain circumstances acts like the sum of all positive number would act.

the best 'explanation' of what it '''means''' i know if is seeing how its used in physics
im not posting the enire thing because i cant remember and be arsed but if you write 1 + 2 + 3 + ... as the limit of a series in epsilon such that in the limit epsilon -> 0 you get 1 + 2 + 3 + ... you can write the sum as 1/epsilon^2 - 1/12, obviously this is infinity since epsilon -> 0 in 1/epsilon^2 = infinity, but you can ignore the 'small' infinite part and use the -1/12 only when you are very careful and in some cases. example you can add or subtract a constant amount from the total energy and nothing changes, since only differences in energy matter, so youi can subtract away the constant infinity and leave only the -1/12.

heres a better explanation in how its used in string theory
https://youtu.be/-I7PjKyCnI0?t=1h13m27s

[Anonymous No.9135414]

>>9133213
It's more of a calculus for engineers book

[Anonymous No.9135552]

>>9130412
>He's not wrong.
He is wrong. It's not obvious because it isn't even true.

[Anonymous No.9135563]

>>9126337
>S-club system

[Anonymous No.9135574]

>>9127111
>azidoazide azide

Want to know how I know you've never taken a chemistry class? That's a joke name he came up with.

It's 1-diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole

[Anonymous No.9135585]

>>9128981
Your life.

[Anonymous No.9135621]

>>9135552
What are some examples for which it isn't?

[Anonymous No.9136132]

>>9131350
>>9130811
This was done extensively in the past before computers and computer modelling made it possible to calculate graphs for data values.
Source my 70 year old chem. eng. grandpa that has worked as a petroleum engineer for more than 40 years.

[Anonymous No.9136135]

>>9130414
I'm a software engineer and don't know the one mentioned at my spot in the meme :c
What's it about?

[Anonymous No.9136150]

>>9126336
>Think.
that's not how this shit works you're supposed to do the thinking and put it into words/explanations otherwise what's the point of your existence

[Anonymous No.9136179]

>>9126418
But chemists do have physical chemistry where the standard model of particles physics is introduced. Sure chemists don't require any broader knowledge of subatomic particles, but they should at least know about them.

[Anonymous No.9136193]

>>9131350
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAJyWGTjdqM&t=465

[Anonymous No.9136266]

>>9135552
It's true on the autistic level by constructing "we should" statements. "We should control this land area", "we should get your natural resources" etc.

[Anonymous No.9136284]

[Anonymous No.9136292]

>>9130811
>>9131350

It's more accurate than approximating with rectangles or trapezoids.

[Anonymous No.9136300]

>>9136135
something like this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_rule

[Anonymous No.9136307]

>>9128660
>Almost
The single word that may save him from being called stupid

[Anonymous No.9136309]

[Anonymous No.9136315]

>>9126431
That's Ian Stewart I think? He's actually a good author but writes tons of popsci shite

[Anonymous No.9136435]

>>9136284
Haven't seen this one yet lmao. It was invented

[Anonymous No.9136452]

>>9131481
Why is it a partial derivative though

[Anonymous No.9136458]

>>9136309
I love this.

[Anonymous No.9136637]

>>9126336

[Anonymous No.9136661]

>>9128657
so this is where the silicon valley writers got their idea

[Anonymous No.9136762]

>>9130064
Just group the first n persons in one point and derail the trolley. Infinite lives saved.

[Anonymous No.9136785]

>>9126336
>>9126337
What are these from?

[Anonymous No.9136808]

>>9128650
That man is a legend.

[Anonymous No.9136835]

>>9136762
>all but finitely many suffocate and explode in space
>countably infinite people die horribly

[Anonymous No.9136911]

>>9131354

>not posting this one

[Anonymous No.9136919]

>>9126411
Lost. I'm a simple man...

[Anonymous No.9137001]

>>9128691
Keked, but why is this a thing

[Anonymous No.9137039]

>>9133603
Because it isn't true.

An oversimplified explanantion that someone whose better at analysis than me can take probably take umbridge with.

If we have f(x) being an analytic function for x is some region X and g(x) also being analytic in Y such that X subset of Y we call that the analytic continuation, it's also unique, so manipulations on g can tell us properties about f.

There is a function, f(z), defined for Re z>1 where if it could be evaluated at z=-1 would be the sum of the natural numbers, but it isn't defined at that point.

There is another funchtion, g(z), with the property that g(z)=f(z) for Re(z)>1
g(-1)=-1/12

So people say something like the sum of the natural numbers is -1/12 as shorthand for when doing some manipulation on the series of natural numbers the number we use is -1/12

Other people then come along, and think 1+2+3...=-1/12 is a true statement, and the simple mathematical proof that 1>-1/12 and adding positive integers is strictly increasing etc. doesn't count because it's 'too simple'

[Anonymous No.9137105]

>>9136911
>on
still kek every time

[Anonymous No.9137121]

>>9131354
Lost

[Anonymous No.9137165]

>>9128660
Our generation's Einstein

[Anonymous No.9137298]

>>9137165
Don't talk shit about Black Science Man!

[Anonymous No.9137527]

>>9137298
whooooaaaa he is so smart, I fucking love science.

[Anonymous No.9137550]

>>9128680
Of course the authors are chinese.

[Anonymous No.9137969]

>>9136284
Lost it

[Anonymous No.9138047]

>>9137001
Abstract
Chinstrap and Ade´lie penguins generate considerable
pressures to propel their faeces away from the
edge of the nest. The pressures involved can be
approximated if the following parameters are known: (1)
distance the faecal material travels before it hits the
ground, (2) density and viscosity of the material, and (3)
shape, aperture, and height above the ground of the
orificium venti. With all of these parameters measured,
we calculated that fully grown penguins generate pressures
of around 10 kPa (77 mm Hg) to expel watery
material and 60 kPa (450 mm Hg) to expel material of
higher viscosity similar to that of olive oil. The forces
involved, lying well above those known for humans, are
high, but do not lead to an energetically wasteful turbulent
flow. Whether a bird chooses the direction into
which it decides to expel its faeces, and what role the
wind plays in this, remain unknown.

[Anonymous No.9138095]

>>9126415

under8d post

[Anonymous No.9138541]

could you bring petrol on a klein bottle with you on a plane as it is below the volume limit

[Anonymous No.9138761]

>>9131824
>YELLOWED.COM
if only it were real

[Anonymous No.9138861]

>>9138541
Even if it counted as being below the volume limit, it's still not sealed.

[Anonymous No.9138881]

>>9126340
Where was this published?

[Anonymous No.9138893]

>>9126355
Niggers and Mathematics don't mix.

[Anonymous No.9138897]

>>9136435
It was discovered.

[Anonymous No.9138909]

>>9138861
could you rotate it into a sealed container?

[Anonymous No.9138916]

>>9126337
>S-club

[Anonymous No.9138958]

>>9126355
>Dividing both sides by X, we obtain..
>How do we calculate the volumes and show the two ratios are equal? First, we need to know about [math]\textbf{integrals}[/math] and how to set them up for volume calculations.
It makes me legitimately angry that this qualified as a PhD dissertation.

[Anonymous No.9138962]

>>9126355
>In order to understand our volume calculation, you will need to know what an integral is. An integral is whatever you want it to be (certain terms and restrictions apply; read the fine print, not provided here). It’s notation. It’s metaphor. It’s an allusion. I taught Calc 2 repeatedly, so when I see an integral, I always see the Calc 2 integral, but that’s just one small part of the story.
Then she explains what an integral is.

It makes me legitimately angry this qualified as a PhD dissertation. What a fucking joke and disgrace.

[Anonymous No.9138995]

>>9138909
but the sealed container would also contain the liquid though?

[Anonymous No.9139423]

>>9135574
>2 carbons
Fuck off with this half assed bullshit

[Anonymous No.9139681]

The picture NASA doesn't want you to see

[Anonymous No.9139692]

This always gives me a good laugh.
http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf

[Anonymous No.9139700]

>>9126359
I made the mistake of reading the comments on this article. They're all encouraging and there are a few planning to adopt the same approach in their teaching. Hopefully the critical comments have been deleted, and this isn't the state of ams readership

also, a choice quote from the article
>Proof writing is revisionist history, and the western view of math as ahistorical implicitly supports white and male supremacy by making other contributions invisible.

[Anonymous No.9139710]

>>9126359
If it's any comfort, his ratemyprofessor is overwhelmingly negative: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1324685

[Anonymous No.9139969]

>>9135574
>he does the virgin IUPAC

[Anonymous No.9140034]

>>9133445
The Riemann Zeta function is defined as the sum from n = one to infinity of 1 / (n^s) , where s is a complex input, when the real component of s > 1. For all other s, it's basically defined as what you get by continuing the existing pattern (analytic continuation). When s = -1, the value is -1/12, but brainlets don't know how the function is defined and think this equals 1/(1^-1) + 1/(2^-1) ... which is the sum of all natural numbers.

TL;DR people don't know how the Riemann Zeta function is defined and hence draw a wrong conclusion from Zeta(-1) = -1/12

[Anonymous No.9140060]

>>9134212
>string theory
lel

[Anonymous No.9140171]

>>9126421

[Anonymous No.9140213]

>>9140060
do you have that condition where you just laugh at things you dont understand?

[Anonymous No.9140225]

>>9140213
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-string-theory-is-still-not-even-wrong/

[Anonymous No.9140244]

>>9140213
ahahahahahahah

[Anonymous No.9140268]

>>9127494
Based Dudley.

His Elementary Number Theory is just as entertaining.

[Anonymous No.9140279]

>>9126421
>>9140171
This is the best one of these

[Anonymous No.9140326]

>>9140225
>>9140244
>not even wrong
obviously, Suskind (guy in the vid, and one of the guys who invented string theory), and just about anyone who has studied it agrees that at best its a great toy model that shows relativistic quantum effects of the field theory of more complicated objects than point particles.only popsci every tries to push string theory as a legit theory of everything.

This doesn't mean string theory isnt useful, the mathematics is a lot more solid than that of QFT, and a lot of the techniques developed in string theory is used in quantum chromodynamics (which is falsifiable and has been tested so why know the techniques work), to calculate something in CQD most of the time we reformulate the problem in terms of a string theory and solve it there.

phi-4 theory for example is also a toy model, yet obviously not 'wrong' and is taught in every QFT textbook.

if you understand the video youll see how the same methods work in QFT to give actual, falsifiable results which give some of the most accurate predictions humans have ever made.

[Anonymous No.9140330]

>>9138962
From PhD dissertation from ivy, no less. Disgrace is an understatement.

[Anonymous No.9140363]

>>9138962
>>9140330
and with fields medal advisor

[Anonymous No.9140379]

[Anonymous No.9140411]

>>9140379

[Anonymous No.9140424]

>>9140379
"Has never seen a pair of gloves in his life"

[Anonymous No.9140431]

>>9126359
Math is pure politics. Never happened to you to use "wrong" notation or do "not interesting" problems?

Also, not all people all equal so it is oppressive af.

[Anonymous No.9140441]

>>9128607
> you have never read proof of it and you use that only because your feelings

[Anonymous No.9140449]

>>9126999
> all right-wing STEM academics are Russian agents

[Anonymous No.9140852]

can someone post the brain meme about the gcd please?

[Anonymous No.9141056]

>>9133605
Holy shit i lost.
Thank you for introducing me to "look around you", i thing i know how i'm going to spend my evening.

[Anonymous No.9141677]

>>9137298

What does the color of your blood have anything to do with stop lights and stop signs?

[Anonymous No.9141701]

>>9141677
the idea is that people have an instinctual fear reaction to seeing the color red because if you see red it might be because you're bleeding or you're standing in a dangerous spot looking at blood and gore. but it's pretty dumb because stop signs are red mainly because any other color would be harder to see in most situations. camouflage which is made to blend in with nature as much as possible is made with colors like green, brown, grey, beige, blue, white.

[Anonymous No.9141790]

>>9126336
OC coming through. (The course was fucking easy. Literally the first half of mastering physics for engineers and scientists)

[Anonymous No.9142060]

>>9131350
It's legit. Assuming the graph paper used is uniform and its mass is distributed equally:

R = weight per area of regular graph paper
W = weight of modified graph paper (the cut out)

W/R = Area of the cut out

Granted it isn't the quickest way to calculate area but it works.

[Anonymous No.9142096]

>>9141701
Brainlet reasoning. Red stands out to us more because our eyes and brains are hard-wired to notice it more in the first place.

[Anonymous No.9142157]

>>9142096
the eye is more sensitive to green dumbass

http://nfggames.com/games/ntsc/visual.shtm

[Anonymous No.9142183]

>>9129800
Kek

[Anonymous No.9142227]

>>9141056
You should also check out Peter Serafinowicz videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfvEgWINUFc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSG2pD-2O2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rO-I7butL4