/sci/ - Science & Math

Just a reminder that if you don't make a significant contribution by 20 your life is basically worthless

I'm doing a BSc in Maths at a not-so-great UK university. How good will I have to do to have a realistic chance of getting into a top-tier masters (Oxbridge, Ivy League)? I'm sure I need a first, but would an average of 80 be enough? 85? 90?

I will probably be able to get 3 strong recommendation letters, two of which from professors in the subfield I want to specialize in, and I have pretty good extracurriculars.

I had my ice cream in the fridge for a day, took it out and put it in the freezer one hour ago. When will it be frozen again? It is 500g, the freezer is -5C, the fridge +4.

>>9435214

Do I stop or what. I don’t even fap anymore because I enjoy it. I do it because having soaked underwear before I sleep helps me fall asleep

Will eliminating carbs help me focus better in any way.

If not what foods or diets should I follow, the food at my uni is pretty shit, I usually just eat the salmon and salads.

a and b are complex, a+b and ab are algebraic. Are a and b algebraic?

>>9287059
>All masters have done their craft obsessively for large portions of their life
Is this a joke? The world of STEM is filled with people whose brilliance was apparent very early. Sure they generally work a long time and keep being productive, but we didn't wait till he was 50 to know that Von Neumann was a genius.

Late bloomers are, by comparison, the exception.

Why haven't you invented a new branch of mathematics yet, /sci/?

>>9048312
And Galois died at age 20.
Just 20 years old.

Imagine what Galois could be done if he lived above 70 yo.

>I'm a genius and a pioneer of modern algebra
>Better get into a duel over a whore
>Oh shit I'm dead

>>8973137
>I can't think of anything off the top of my head but I doubt this is the first mathematical theory that's taken at least 5 years to trickle down into the mainstream. I'll try to find an example.
I'm thinking Galois fits here (died in 1832):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois_theory#Aftermath
>Galois' theory was notoriously difficult for his contemporaries to understand, especially to the level where they could expand on it. For example, in his 1846 commentary, Liouville completely missed the group-theoretic core of Galois' method.[7] Joseph Alfred Serret who attended some of Liouville's talks, included Galois theory in his 1866 (third edition) of his textbook Cours d'algèbre supérieure. Serret's pupil, Camille Jordan had an even better understanding reflected in his 1870 book Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques. Outside France Galois theory remained more obscure for a longer period. In Britain, Cayley failed to grasp its depth and popular British algebra textbooks didn't even mention Galois theory until well after the turn of the century. In Germany, Kronecker's writings focused more on Abel's result. Dedekind wrote little about Galois theory, but lectured on it at Göttingen in 1858, showing a very good understanding.[8] Eugen Netto's books of the 1880s, based on Jordan's Traité, made Galois theory accessible to a wider German and American audience as did Heinrich Martin Weber's highly influential 1895 algebra textbook.[9]

>>8859672
>not being a beautiful scientist
Intelligence is also needed for the top beautiful humans as well, so the best qualities are both intelligence and beauty.

How do you think they know how to rule them all?

>mfw to intelligent too shoot first

I bet none of you can pronounce his name right

>Galatasaray Theory

>>8616818
>Implying Galois wasn't the lovechild of /r9k/ and /sci/

>>8588302
Because they've got the best boy pussies.

Where would mathematics be today if Galois actually had good handwriting?

yet still be a complete dumbass at the same time?

Can this be simplified?

[math]E \left[ E[Y^2 \mid| X] - (E[Y \mid X])^2 \right] [/math]

Does it simplify to [math] E[Y \mid X ] [/math]

>>8436485

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89variste_Galois

It's quite feasible and easy to make a simple set-up where you press a small button that starts a mechanical arrangement of magnets to produce and store electric energy. It wouldn't take up much space and it would be very clean and efficient. And besides the possibility of fire outbreaks in the storage system it would be totally safe and easy to use. Similar methods to propel a terrestrial vehicle or a a flying vehicle are equally feasible and equally just as easy to make. Cost is very negligible as well. So why don't these exist? I've thought about this energy source very hard for the past five months. I predict I'll make trillions from technologies based on this premise years from now. Discuss.