/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1109169
>implying if you haven't said 'umad' you're not a troll

>>1109066
for one, google isn't supposed to actually compute things like Wolfram Alpha. It only includes things like 0^0 because lots of people end up putting that into the search bar. Google is a search engine; Wolfram Alpha searches AND computes.

>>1109037
at this point it is beyond doubt that OP is a math troll

but to answer your question, those are definitions that whoever made that image has DECIDED to use. Dividing by zero has no value, but it is convenient to define it as positive or negative infinity for many purposes (including computer science) because the limit of k/x for any constant real k as x approaches zero is positive or negative infinity, depending on your direction of approach. However, k/0 is not actually defined, as shown by the properties of the 1/x function. pic related.

>>1109018
yep. when you work with zero, "common sense" definitions in arithmetic don't really work, so they have to make something else up. There isn't really a standard.

if you want to get into the math of it, technically our definition of ^ is defined as an extension of integer exponents to include any real number as an exponent, in the same way that the gamma function is an extension of the factorial. So "to the power of" takes on a different meaning than "multiply x by itself y times". Then with 0^0, you get all sorts of weird shit going on because 0/0 and log base 0 don't really make physical sense, we just have to define them for usability purposes in computer science. However, mathematically 0^0 is an error because it doesn't really mean anything; google etc. probably set it to 1 just to make life nice for you.

>>1109001
different definition for ^

Black lights DO cause degradation in plastics and paint, but a blacklight puts out MUCH less UV than the sun does. Note that you can't get a sunburn from a blacklight. Thus they cause LESS degradation than sunlight.

However I have no idea bout tanning lamps, those POS are serious bzn.

>>1108956

....which is still a data type with limited storage.....

they have really fucking portentous phrenology

>>1108948
fool. everything is algebra. see
>>1108947

>>1108935
wow I fucking lold

>>1108910
actually, it does work fairly well even for comparably small numbers. It's clearly not as fast as the algorithm you gave, but it's not absurdly slow either. For details on how such an algorithm can be constructed see the first couple chapters of this book, where I read about the same topic:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rp6j7455u08761l7/

>>1108902
no, you are the noob. see
>>1108901

>>1108890
yes there is, given infinite computer processing space you can construct an algorithm in c++ with dynamic memory allocation that can handle any size numbers

>>1108871
fucking noob.

int only holds numbers with magnitude less than 2.147 billion (in C/C++) so if you try to multiply 1 billion times 2 billion you will get an error.

>>1108566
HES 80 METERS TALL RUN FOR THE HILLS

>>1108855
lol wrongthredfail

Hello /sci/

I learned the material covered in the first two years of Cambridge's maths degree in the past year, as well as some other random topics they don't get to until third year. And I haven't even really been focusing on mathematics, I had two part-time jobs the whole time and spent about half my academic time in the music department. However, I am an absolutely terrible student, have a 2.2 GPA (out of 4), and no course credit for about half my knowledge. wat do.

(pic related, Chua System I studied recently)

>>1108708
I disagree. there are very few numbers the human mind cannot understand; most of those are meaninglessly large and never actually used outside of technical fields (like googol or 10^-15)

>>1108744
WORD
although this is a fairly idealistic view, more people need to hear it.

>>1108648
I took all those except Complex Analysis during my first year of being a mathematics major (i.e. my first year of taking mathematics classes. before this I was attending a college for 1 year, but didnt' actually take any math)

are you trying to prove |x-y| <= |x| - |y|? because that's actually a relevant piece of mathematics, what you posted is just the definition of absolute value on real numbers.... (i.e. left side is a real number, right side is the absolute value of left side)

>>1108684
inb4 all the noobs look him up on wikipedia

Evariste Galois was smarter. That's why he died more tragically young.

>>1108662
wrong. we can concieve a set like the integers, where each number has a number after it, on into infinity. Or at least we can understand it completely at a naive level. However, without mathematical analysis we cannot distinguish an uncountable set from, say, the rational numbers (which ARE countable)