/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2974861

BROKE THE DEAL TWICE?

!?!??!

>>2974848

there we go.

>dat nipple.
>dem eyes.
>dat face.

>>2974836
>>2974836

WHOA, WHOA.

THIS WAS NOT THE DEAL. CHICKS ONRY.

>>2974803

>fall in love you lose
etc.

i'd marry her. she looks ridiculously clean, too.

>>2974816

nice petite figure.

>>2974790

she has such a nice ass. ._.

i just want to hug it. like, huggle.
huggle snuggle.

>>2974783

i have a few pics of this chick, but are there anymore? this one is new.

>>2974769

idk, her nose seems kinda off to me.

like, off-point. her face looks amazing, then
>dat nose
idk, man. idk. weird.

>>2974755

i really need to get another spanish gf.

>>2974747

i love when girls dress up like that. just a shirt and thong/panties/booty shorts. when my gf did that, i could never stop myself from having sex with her.

._. stupid bitch cheated on me. but, while it lasted, TWAS HEAVEN.

heaven. .__.

>>2974728

she has a nice ass, damn. but it isn't as good as the other ass posted above.

>>2974718

see, this deal is perfect. who said 4channers can't bargain and be civil with one another?

civilty is fucking win.

>>2974708

WE HAPPY NOW.

so, here's the deal: i'll let you talk about Jean Baptiste as long as you most more chicks. in return, i'll bump your thread.

>>2974703

that doesn't look like a girl; that looks like a block of text.

i can massage my dick to a block of text ... well, unless it's erotica. ._.

tl, dr

post more of the chick.

you made this same fucking thread before. it devolved into a conversation of z^-3 and all of this nonsense, and nothing got done.

shut the fuck up.

I have it. At best, you need a very good basic understanding of Graduate-level Mathematics. Differential Geometry, Riemmanian Geometry, some Abstract/Linear Algebra, virtuoso level knowledge of Cartesian and natural Geometry; some projective Geometry. Your physics background can be under-grad level, but it focuses on electromagnetism a lot in some sections.

It's not an easy book to read. Well, for me it isn't. I go through it when I'm relatively looking to be challenged or gain some introspective insight into how Geometry actually works in the real world.

>>2954061

Some Comm. College professors were actually students who just partied, got high/drunk, were promiscuous and enjoyed the "College life" when they were undergrads. Others are ridiculously intelligent, but they were shafted because of lack of networking/didn't know the right people/didn't kiss enough ass. A select few are ridiculously intelligent, but willingly chose to go to a Comm. College to give back to the community as a whole and/or didn't want the workload of a research professor. Professors at relatively good institutions are usually buried in their own personal research, and they treat teaching as a 'requirement' rather than as a beneficial service to students. I was lucky to have professors who enjoy teaching and research equally.

That cramming shit only works only so often. No offense, but it rarely works for higher-end div. classes where long-term studying is not only necessary, but vital to success. Personally, a combination has always worked for me. For my Ring Theory class, I normally study about 8-10 hrs a week and two/three days before the exam, I study about 3hrs a day(if I can squeeze them in). The day of the exam, I try to take it easy and only peruse everything, shape up what I need and just practice. The day of the exam is used for study-blemish-retouching; that's about it.

>>2954016

>sheer triviality of it

Sun Tzu once said that the little things need to be paid more attention than the big things.

>>2954010

Yes. Find the quotient of (x^3 + 3x^2 + 3x + 3)/(x^2 + 3)

You can use synthetic division or basic polynomial division. Doesn't matter to me.

>>2953989

L'hopitals rule. It's in the indeterminate form (inf/inf), so just do this:

f(x)=9-x^2
g(x)=x^3 - 27

f'(x) = -2x
g'(x) = 3x^2

f'(x)/g'(x) = -2x / 3x^2 = -2 / 3x = -2 / 3(3) = -2/9.

Or, you can try breaking it down algebraically. I just like the L'hopital way because it's easier.

>>2953967

He can assume the typical axioms, such as the rules of algebra. I just want the atypical algebraic proof where he's able to derive it. Anything's fair game.

Just derive the result. Community College or not, one should be able to produce the algebraic proof.

Prove the quadratic formula. It's not pre-calc knowledge at all, but you're expected to bust it out easily.

One more bumppppppp. I'm really curious about this proof.

Bump. This is bugging me guys. I know some of you Group/Ring Theory guys are out there. Help me out!

Hey, /sci/. I need some help here; or rather, I need to clarify something.

Currently, I'm working on the second isomorphism theorem of Ring Theory and I'm a bit perplexed by the proof of the second part. It's not that I can't understand the proof, but rather, why was it done this way? This is what I'm talking about:

>Prove S ∩ N is an ideal of S.

The proof I'm viewing utilizes epimorphism, image, kernal, etc. However, why not go this proposed route:

1) Corollary: Prove that S ∩ N is a ring.
2) Prove that S ∩ N is ideal.

Why go through the other route? S is a subring of R and N is an ideal of R, so could that proof work? Or no?

Bump.

Also, I'm trying to do proofs straight from my head. I don't really want to 'memorize' or do flashcards; I want to actually follow along a path of logical coherence and see where it leads me. I had a lot of good input regarding that and I was told that I've a good understanding of the rules, but my logical flow was off since I kept assuming certain things.