/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5953028
Shush now

Here's an idea:

/SCI/: STOP POSTING IN THIS FUCKING THREAD. EVERYTHING YOU SAY GETS REPLIED TO. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF OP, I WANT THIS TO BE THE LAST POST.

THIS THREAD DOES NOTHING BUT CLUTTER THE FRONT PAGE. SO STOP POSTING!

saging, but I know OP will bump in reply to me anyway
Prove me wrong, OP

(180*(n-2))/n

This is high school geometry. Go back 2 school, retard.

>>5687026
I don't find that image funny your fucking nigger

>>5690151
>>5690154
>>5690155
Good ... good ...

>>5690139
>OP's idea of redefining radians so that the unit circle has circumference pi.
Nope. He was talking about redefining pi so that the unit circle has pi radians. Close, but no cigar.

I agree that your understanding of his approach would ruin maths, if it makes you feel any better.

Retard.

>>5690131
anon if faggotry is a more faggoty faggot why faggoty faggot faggotingly faggotish

>>5690117
Cooongratulations. You got quads on the slowest fucking imageboard on this goddamn website, and then everybody cared so much that you had to specifically bring it up for people to notice. Pat yourself on the back, you retard.

>>5690107
ACCEPT TAU YOU RETARDED PI INFIDEL I"M SO ABOVE YOU MOTHERFUCKER GO SUCK YOUR CUMDUMPSTER MOM"S DICK TAU IS LIKE METRIC YOU"RE TO LAZY EATING HAMBURGERS TO GET UP FROM YOUR COUCH AND CATCH UP WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD

RETARD

>>5690078
You utter fucking retard. I can't tell if you just plugged 2pi in for pi and actually simplified or if you're just deriving completely wrong. If ou did it right, nothing would be "broken", it would be the same expression of the constants. A preschooler with a basic grasp of mathematical identites could tell you that. Go away.

>>5690002
Well for one the diameter's the thing you set a compass by, and that's the only way you can measure. But the radius is a lot more important generally.

And yes I am going to spam the fuck out of this thread with my replies. Sage for justice.

>>5690000
With pi and your little manipulation to flip the equation to include 1 and 0, you ruin the meaning of the equation. Guess what nigger:
e^(i*tau) = 1 + 0

That's the legit unsimplified equation. It actually conveys some meaning, too: tau radians is a full trip around the circle. Suck it.

>>5669643
Because this thread must never die.

Zero divided by any number (0/x) is equal to zero. This is the same as taking zero parts of something- or zero in and of itself. However, division *by* zero is a different problem. Since zero is, well, nothing, it cannot be split into any number of parts. As such, x/0 is undefined, proving an exception to the above rule (0/x=0).

If we were to define 0/x as infinity or any other symbol, we would lose the zero property of multiplication and thus the ability of mathematics to form a field. For example, say that x/0 is equal to our hypothetical variable, k. However, this means that 0k=x, destroying the zero property for any value of x besides 0.

This does, as noted, leave open the possibility of 0/0. However, that value is absolutely immutable. Adding to or subtracting from the fraction would necessitate a common denominator by multiplying the other fraction by zero, making it 0/0+0/0. Due to the zero property, multiplying or dividing the 0/0 fraction would be meaningless. For obvious reasons, the same would apply to raising or rooting the number.

In conclusion, we could consistently assert the value of 0/0 without any problems, but go no further. QED.

>>5517761
Simplified:
1) God is the greatest being.
2) It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3) God exists.

[ ] autism
[ ] aspergers
[ ] schizophrenia
[ ] OCD
[ ] ADD / ADHD
[ ] anti-social / avoidant / borderline
[ ] clinical depression / seasonal-affective disorder /
[ ] bipolar / manic-depressive
[ ] panic attacks
[ ] anxiety attacks / social anxiety
[ ] phobia
[ ] eating disorder
[ ] substance-abuse

A theory is something that has been tested and accepted as true, eg the theory of relativity. It allows you to make predictions about future observations, either in the fossil record or in photon distribution. Evolution has, in this way, satisfied the requirements for being a theory. However, string theory has not; it only explains things we have already observed, but cannot make any (valid) predictions. This is akin to phlogiston, which was the common explanation for fire before 1900. Phlogiston was given the properties seen to be displayed by fire, and, thus, whenever people saw fire exhibiting these properties, they thought, "Oh, more evidence for phlogiston!" However, since it was not "properties of phlogiston"->"properties of fire" but "properties of fire"->"properties of phlogiston"->"properties of fire", there's a recursive feedback loop. When you burn a fire with the same properties as phlogiston, it looks like more evidence for phlogiston, when, actually, phlogiston does not exist. It's just more evidence for fire. The same is applicable to string theory.

(Julain Barbour timeless physics trumps string theory 9000 times over btw, and time isn't a dimension)

Hard science answers how, what, and sometimes where and when. Never why. That's the job of the "soft" sciences: philosophy, sociology, psychology, etc.

Let's all settle the difference between atomic and digital economics. Assuming that we're working with a free market (capitalism), atomic things should cost money, while digital things shouldn't. If we started out producing digital things instead of atomic ones, we would have no need for property laws. Property laws only extend to the atomic, not the digital.

The blatant disrespect here is enormous. I'll be back, /x/, when I'm ready to answer ALL of your questions on the spot. I'll be back.

>>4856729
... not me... as I understand it, OP is a common nickname for the author of a thread. Might be getting confused.

>>4856730
There are no NEW axioms. They are implied by the discovery of bleem. I do not understand, however, what inspires people to be so rude towards me. At least have some courtesy.

>>4856737
That bleem has nothing to do with Bleem's Number except name. Perhaps I should change that title to sever the ties. Theta Prime would give a symbol, too. Switching to calling this Theta Prime.

>>4856691
What is this and what does it have to do with Bleem's Number? I named it so in tribute of the story The Secret Number, where there's a digit between 3 and 4.

>>4856689
It's different than just regular base ten because it's not a pegged on number. The ~15% between 3 and 3.15... is stretched out into 100% between 3 and bleem. That's what makes pi and 10^-2 rational. As for a polynomial:

>>4856685
Gimme a few, will post. Prettying up relevant sketches so that my handwriting is legible.

>>4856679
read reply to >>4856675

>>4856674
Congrats, except that those two concepts are only tangentially related. Pascal's Triangle

>>4856675
No, I am not reinventing them, they have *always* been there. It makes so much sense, when you look at it. The pieces fit together perfectly. The rows on Pascal's triangle take on new meaning when constructed with bleem. It disproves the Riemann hypothesis and also proves that there is no counterexample.