Anonymous 2021-12-31 (Fri) 20:23:50 No. 9141
>>9138 >a lot of quacks come up with "solutions" that are blatantly incorrect. All of the open problems require a lot of study to even understand Counter-example to your second claim: Collatz conjecture (also a great example
for your first claim).
Anonymous 2022-01-01 (Sat) 21:37:52 No. 9154
>>9141 Do you mean to insinuate that the Collatz conjecture is misleading?
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 14:48:05 No. 9168
>>9155 ?
First claim in the quote you've addressed is 'a lot of quacks come up with solutions that are blatantly incorrect'
Second claim is 'all of the open problems require a lot of study to understand'
Anonymous 2022-01-02 (Sun) 15:22:47 No. 9169
>>9168 I'm not that anon lol. The Collatz conjuncture is easy to understand, which contradicts the claim that
> All of the open problems require a lot of study to even understand Anonymous 2022-01-23 (Sun) 00:16:46 No. 9480
>>9155 cute and aesthetically pleasing reaction image
i am monke
Anonymous 2022-01-23 (Sun) 09:55:11 No. 9481
>>9478 Yeah that's how I found it but why is that the case?? It's very suspicious.
Anonymous 2022-02-11 (Fri) 11:56:33 No. 9731
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v68zYyaEmEA does this video have to do with mathematics
is maths the way to solve wordle the best?
Anonymous 2022-02-12 (Sat) 10:06:38 No. 9747
>>9731 I don't have time to watch the whole thing, but at the beginning it looks like they just tried out every combination ever? That doesn't sound very mathy.
Anonymous 2022-02-12 (Sat) 13:08:22 No. 9749
>>338 Math is the biggest waste of time
Anonymous 2022-02-12 (Sat) 18:24:58 No. 9750
>>338 someone here redpill me on the concept of infinity
Anonymous 2022-03-23 (Wed) 05:46:17 No. 10112
are you here {}anon?
Anonymous 2022-03-23 (Wed) 05:46:46 No. 10113
can we continue with you responding to
>>>/leftypol/873853 here?
Anonymous 2022-03-23 (Wed) 05:50:04 No. 10114
>>10113 >https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%7C%7B%7D%7C%3D Wolfram is interpreting it as the absolute value and not cardinality of sets. (See pic 1)
>you can't have a set without an empty set, no? Can you clarify this question? Are you referring to the construction of natural numbers starting with the empty set?
Anonymous 2022-03-29 (Tue) 16:12:28 No. 10237
Another day I didn't study. Why do I do this, the exam session is about to start aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Anonymous 2022-04-19 (Tue) 18:27:52 No. 10404
>search page 0 results for optimization or operations research.
Anonymous 2022-04-19 (Tue) 18:43:19 No. 10405
>>338 Math seems like such a massive field that It would be impossible to master in a lifetime unless you have a specific interest or use it for practical purposes.
Sneederman 2022-09-14 (Wed) 02:26:58 No. 11647
>with a step by step
Anonymous 2022-09-14 (Wed) 02:39:38 No. 11648
>This makes me feel mentally disabled You're a namefag, of course you feel that way. Drop that junk.
That's set theory, with a couple of complex numbers. I'm assuming you know what those are. If not, look it up.
I'm not great with (nor generally interested in) mathematics, but if I'm reading it right (Q = the set of rational numbers, which is normal for the blackboard-bold symbol Q,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_number , and the final question being what is the intersection between the set S and Q) then it's just asking which of the 6 elements of the set S are rational.
So for example, 1/3 and 22/7 are obviously rational, [pi]/3 is obviously not, and so you need to figure out if the other 3 are rational. I forget all my trig and odd/even powers of those complex fractions so someone else needs to sub in.
Anonymous 2022-09-14 (Wed) 07:05:22 No. 11650
Try transforming the complex numbers into trigonometric form, they look like they will have a modulus of 1 which will make the exponentiation easy.
Anonymous 2022-09-14 (Wed) 14:04:19 No. 11651
>>11646 > a step by step https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_arithmetic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots_of_unity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system#Complex_numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Moivre%27s_formula You are asked to count the rational numbers in S. Two of them are evidently rational. π/3 is irrational, but in most contexts this will be accepted as known since the proof is non-trivial. If you can't remember the sine of π/3 take a right-angled triangle with an angle of 60 degrees and take the ratio of the opposite leg and the hypotenuse. Complete your right-angled triangle by reflection to an equilateral triangle and you will easily find the ratio to be sqrt(3)/2. For the irrationality of sqrt(3) take a^2==3*b^2 with a and b coprime, take the unique prime factorization of both sides and simply count the parity of the number of times 3 appears on each side.
For the first two values, identify them as roots of unity, a cube root and an eighth root. Recall that when raising roots of unity to natural powers you may discard multiples of the root order. Reduce 2019 modulo 3 and 8. This resolves the first value, while for the second you are left with the cube of an eighth root. Since you only need the rationality of the imaginary part you can avoid doing any computation by recalling that exponentiation by natural powers on the unit circle amounts to rotation by multiples of the base angle. Since the base angle is π/4, first quadrant, cubing takes you to 3π/4, second quadrant. This has the effect of flipping the real part sign and leaving everything else untouched, which resolves the second item in S.
Anonymous 2022-09-18 (Sun) 11:32:38 No. 11679
>>10404 we're all in the /cybersoc/ thread
Anonymous 2023-01-18 (Wed) 04:53:53 No. 12227
>>9475 Because
e = lim{x to infinity} (1 + 1/x)^x
Anonymous 2023-01-20 (Fri) 05:58:53 No. 12233
>>344 That's reassuring, I guess I just need to learn linear algebra then
Anonymous 2023-01-20 (Fri) 07:41:57 No. 12234
>>5504 > I like things involving theory, writing, critical thinking, etc. That sounds like mathematics…
Mir's Little Mathematics Library Anonymous 2023-01-20 (Fri) 08:11:36 No. 12235
https://archive.org/search?query=subject%3A%22little+mathematics+library%22 Cute short books by Soviet mathematicians. They are based on lectures given to high school students, so they should be accessible to most of us here.
Anonymous 2023-01-21 (Sat) 04:48:52 No. 12240
>>12234 WEEWOO POSITIVIST DETECTED, WE'RE HERE TO TAKE YOU AWAY FROM THE GOOD DIALECTICAL CITIZENS
Anonymous 2023-01-24 (Tue) 04:46:38 No. 12260
Taking Calc II at a community college.
Anonymous 2023-03-12 (Sun) 15:44:42 No. 12612
>>12611 It is pretty easy to do inductively. First you show that it holds for n=1, that's trivial. Then you say: assuming it holds for n, it will also hold for n+1. You write down the left side, rearrange it a little so that the left side of the n case is there, replace that with the right side of the n case, and verify that you have got the right side of the n+1 case.
Anonymous 2023-06-17 (Sat) 00:31:57 No. 18025
>>496 Do you have the latex template for this? I would like to use this format for my own cheat sheets.
Anonymous 2023-06-17 (Sat) 00:57:28 No. 18027
Is Khan Academy good up till calculus?
Anonymous 2023-06-19 (Mon) 05:24:54 No. 18222
Hello, I been looking for some calculus books and where would I go from calculus. The back ground is that I was in college to do chemistry (This shit was hard let me tell you) and I didn't do so well in my calculus course and one of the things that made it difficult was my teacher who was teaching the course. The other problem was me at this time being fresh out of high school in college without the maturity needed to be in College yet.
Anonymous 2023-06-19 (Mon) 07:03:35 No. 18223
>>18222 I read these two books for similar reasons. Although in my case I can't blame it on the teacher. There might be better books, I chose these two because they are relatively short compared to other calculus textbooks
and because they were written in emacs .
I am not sure about programming itself, but if you are interested in actual computer science, like the theoretical stuff, logic is the calculus of computer science.
Anonymous 2023-10-30 (Mon) 08:01:59 No. 20883
It's scary how much easier calculus is if you actually know trigonometry.
Anonymous 2023-10-30 (Mon) 08:16:33 No. 20884
>>20883 In Burger school you have to take trig before calculus.
Anonymous 2023-10-31 (Tue) 07:48:59 No. 20887
>>20884 Oh it's the same here, and I assume that's the way it's taught everywhere, I was just too dumb to actually learn it when it was taught…
Anonymous 2023-11-10 (Fri) 17:08:34 No. 20937
How are you supposed to read maths books that do not have exercises? Exercises are usually good enough to hammer the content into my brain but when there are no exercises I just forget it as soon as I am finished reading.
Anonymous 2024-02-04 (Sun) 12:23:56 No. 21545
What do I need to study for operators? Stuff like "factoring an operator". I understand the analogy but I would like some justification for it.
Anonymous 2024-02-04 (Sun) 12:44:56 No. 21546
>>21545 I mean what field of maths is this included in, linear algebra?
Anonymous 2024-02-07 (Wed) 00:32:36 No. 21553
Can someone explain to me what "Third curvature" is, how it is different from Total Curvature (I'm not even sure about that either) and how it relates to Space-Time?
Unique IPs: 28