/math/ general Comrade 21-12-20 05:19:20 No. 338 [View All]
All good communists study math.
183 posts and 36 image replies omitted. Anonymous 12-02-22 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 12-02-22 13:08:22 No. 9749
>>338 Math is the biggest waste of time
Anonymous 12-02-22 18:24:58 No. 9750
>>338 someone here redpill me on the concept of infinity
Anonymous 23-03-22 05:46:17 No. 10112
are you here {}anon?
Anonymous 23-03-22 05:46:46 No. 10113
can we continue with you responding to
>>>/leftypol/873853 here?
Anonymous 23-03-22 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 29-03-22 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 19-04-22 18:27:52 No. 10404
>search page 0 results for optimization or operations research.
Anonymous 19-04-22 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 14-09-22 02:26:58 No. 11647
>with a step by step
Anonymous 14-09-22 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 14-09-22 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 14-09-22 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 18-09-22 11:32:38 No. 11679
>>10404 we're all in the /cybersoc/ thread
Anonymous 18-01-23 04:53:53 No. 12227
>>9475 Because
e = lim{x to infinity} (1 + 1/x)^x
Anonymous 20-01-23 05:58:53 No. 12233
>>344 That's reassuring, I guess I just need to learn linear algebra then
Anonymous 20-01-23 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 20-01-23 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 21-01-23 04:48:52 No. 12240
>>12234 WEEWOO POSITIVIST DETECTED, WE'RE HERE TO TAKE YOU AWAY FROM THE GOOD DIALECTICAL CITIZENS
Anonymous 24-01-23 04:46:38 No. 12260
Taking Calc II at a community college.
Anonymous 12-03-23 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 17-06-23 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 17-06-23 00:57:28 No. 18027
Is Khan Academy good up till calculus?
Anonymous 19-06-23 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 19-06-23 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 30-10-23 08:01:59 No. 20883
It's scary how much easier calculus is if you actually know trigonometry.
Anonymous 30-10-23 08:16:33 No. 20884
>>20883 In Burger school you have to take trig before calculus.
Anonymous 31-10-23 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 10-11-23 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 04-02-24 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 04-02-24 12:44:56 No. 21546
>>21545 I mean what field of maths is this included in, linear algebra?
Anonymous 07-02-24 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?
Glownonymous 18-10-25 20:12:39 No. 25254
>>7838 (mentions some of the selected titles)
I'm looking for proof theoretic algebra 2, precalculus, or calculus books for high schoolers.
I've read through Serg Lang's Basic Mathematics before and enjoyed it.
Started working through Gelfan's Algebra today because of rumor that it uses proofs.
Then there's obviously Euclid, or the works derived from him.
Am also aware of Artin. and V.I. Arnold's books used to teach Abstract Algebra to high schoolers.
These latter two sound a outlandish to me, or require extremely precocious students.
This is for proof based teaching aids that would be used to teach high schoolers.
Glownonymous 19-10-25 19:59:49 No. 25256
>>25254 Found one more already, it's a standard Japanese textbook.
It's somewhere between the American style and the books we're interested in.
It seems less than 20% of the content involves proof.
Anyone know how the standard Soviet primers compare?
Supposedly they're more proof based, but maybe less than Gelfand and Lang?
Glownonymous 20-10-25 19:12:07 No. 25260
Anyone know a good book on signals processing and systems analysis? Our professor doesn't explain shit, speaking as someone who took two semesters of analysis and linear algebra.
Anonymous 21-10-25 06:42:28 No. 25266
>>25260 Oh, this is why the autistic narcissistic midwit retard decries philosophy, he's a STEMlord
LMFAO imagine making the statements you unironically make and not possessing the self-awareness to recognize how much of an ignorant stereotype you are
fucking kill yourself
Glownonymous 21-10-25 14:19:17 No. 25268
>>25266 >autistic narcissistic midwit retard decries philosophy i've read hegel dipshit and even had a conversation about his concept of being with one of my math professors. i'm the anon who briefly ran a textboard fyi
Anonymous 22-10-25 09:16:08 No. 25273
>>25268 And yet you still came up short and failed to parse any of it LMFAO, I don't give a flying fuck about you and your retarded math professor, stay in your lane and go back to being the autistic stemcel that you are. You are fundamentally incapable of PARSING Hegel; this is not a mere issue of 'reading' him.
Anonymous 22-10-25 09:29:01 No. 25274
>>25273 "I'm the anon who briefly ran a textboard"
as if this is at all relevant to anything other than your narcissism lmao
Glownonymous 22-10-25 11:38:49 No. 25276
>le narcissism
Anonymous 25-10-25 10:04:18 No. 25299
>>25276 You said as much elsewhere under the exact same name, so unless that was someone LARPing as you, you're full of shit. Nice job conversing about the nature of 'being' with your math prof, btw, definitely not the equivalent of trying to discuss calculus with an English professor. Moron.
Anonymous 25-10-25 10:12:11 No. 25300
>>25299 Also, it's particularly funny that you try to coyly dismiss narcissism, i.e. 'le narcissism' as if that pseudo-ironic meandering actually dismisses anything–you ARE a narcissist, which is why you can't seriously bear the brunt of the accusation, in addition to the obvious symptoms you exhibit time and time again. It's funny though, like every narcissist, you will insist upon your delusions to the contrary, so self-absorbed by your own veil that you can't recognize the fact that everyone else sees you for what you obviously are, and every attempt at dignifying yourself according to your own warped perception only serves to humor every external onlooker in actuality.
Glownonymous 25-10-25 11:02:53 No. 25301
omfg, stop acting like an insufferable newfag
>>>/meta/41601 Unique IPs: 25