/math/ general Comrade 21-12-20 05:19:20 No. 338 [View All]
All good communists study math.
172 posts and 34 image replies omitted. Anonymous 31-12-21 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 02-01-22 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 23-01-22 00:16:46 No. 9480
>>9155 cute and aesthetically pleasing reaction image
i am monke
Anonymous 11-02-22 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 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 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 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 18-01-23 04:53:53 No. 12227
>>9475 Because
e = lim{x to infinity} (1 + 1/x)^x
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.
Unique IPs: 28