Look at the definition of the binomial coefficient on Wikipedia>In mathematics, the binomial coefficients are the positive integers that occur as coefficients in the binomial theorem. Commonly, a binomial coefficient is indexed by a pair of integers n ≥ k ≥ 0 and is written [Newton's symbol goes here]>It is the coefficient of the xk term in the polynomial expansion of the binomial power (1 + x)n; this coefficient can be computed by the multiplicative formulameanwhile check out the Wikipedia definition for car>A car, or an automobile, is a motor vehicle with wheels. Most definitions of cars state that they run primarily on roads, seat 1-8 people, have four wheels, and mainly transport people rather than cargo.[1][2] There are over 1.6 billion cars in use worldwide as of 2025.if a math nerd guy wrote this definition, he would define a car such:>a function of four positive integer arguments, defined by>wheels>motor>chassis>suspension>whereby the chassis sets the limit of the function and the motor is the force vector, which brings momentumif the car definition guy wrote the definition for the binomial coefficient, he would write this>a coefficient used in combinatorics which, among other things, serves to calculate the chance of drawing a sequence of a certain length whose terms are identical to the terms of the sequence drawn from a set, for example the chance of hitting jackpot in powerballWhy are mathematicians such cunts?On the Internet more and more people are noticing mathematicians make math seem more difficult than it really is because they are afraid of competition and they don't want REEE NORMIES to start entering their assburger-hobby field
You are a retard. Math has to be watertight or it doesn't work. That's primarily why AI fails so badly at math. It can't do watertight.>t. mathematician
>>16943210you are the retard.there are some mathematicians who put in the effort to grasp the spirit of mathematics and not just follow the letter of the law, but the vast majority of mathematicians look down on these and nitpick whatever supposed errors/oversimplifications they can find and consider them basically persona non grata, and they do all that with the typical flair of a snotty arrogant sperg, they're cuntsyou're essentially confusing what ought to be a textbook/encyclopedic definition, with a RECIPEalso, the simpler definition in the OP is equally watertight, it's just more limited but it explains what it is (how it works) better. the Wikipedia definition meanwhile is more technically complete but also superficial and minimalistic
>>16943220>there are some mathematicians who put in the effort to grasp the spirit of mathematics and not just follow the letter of the law
>>16943226>Cult of PassionLeave. You are not welcome here, attention whoring /x/ fag. I am genuinely sick of seeing your bullshit. I physically can't stand you any less.
this thread is pointless and low quality and purposefully inflammatory.
>>16943248thread is about the pedagogy of mathematics and why it sucks so hardand how can we begin to reform it?wikipedia's math articles are notoriously technical in the way they are written, very rigorous usually, not bad, but not friendly to beginners. but then who are they for?it's weird because every other article is more or less friendly to beginners so much so that a tryhard pseud can just skim wikipedia on these other topics and pretend like he knows shitbut then again its not just wikipedia, so many math textbooks are written just as obscurely, i guess thats why wiki sucks so much on math, they just copy shit from these worst bricks that the biggest pain in the ass professors shill in college
>>16943210>watertight Lol
>>16943248It is purposefully inflammatory yes, and that is a rhetorical tool in persuasive argumentation. This thread is rather high quality as a distillation of this problem in how math is communicated.
>>16943228>You are not welcome hereThis thread topic would be about Pure Mathematics and Linguistics. Do you have expertise in either of these fields?>attention whoring /x/ fagAiring your opinions unrelated to the thread topic but your personal feelngs is base egoism. I have written about OP's issue tangentially in several threads.>I am genuinely sickExhibit A;>seeing your bullshit.Exhibit B;>I physically can't stand youExhibit C;You see, thread, the posts are always about them towards me, never anything else or "merely implied" (/x/).
>>16943334You have expertise in nothing. Get the fuck off this board. /x/ is more your speed.
>>16943337>You have expertise in nothing.What is this peer reviewed based on, specifically,? So the correction can be made permanent.
>>16943337>/x/ is more your speedThats a girl board, here is a boy board, you wanna spout a bunch of bullshit...thats >>>/x/.t.Development Psychology, the process of Cognization>>16943220>the spirit of mathematics and not just follow the letter of the lawThats what I do. Theres a time and place for that, its the reason I dont post in certain kinds of threads. Not because I couldnt, but because I would just warp their thread with different "Maths thinking directions" when if their trying to learn or practice it can screw them up.>whatever supposed errorsFrom overreliance on other definitions.>oversimplificationsAnd overlooking axiomatic utility.Its how you make "crisis in the foundation".
>>16943349>on other definitionsWhere everything's definition is some other lateral component/thing, and nothing at the foundation, so the field can drift without anyon knowing because all the calibrating definituons are set to themselves; circular.I found this when looking for the definition to the number 1. It kind of...just trails off. Its number, but also not because its a "unit", but the definition of 2 is "not number and not number".The implications become very retarded very quickly.
>>16943352>everything's definitionAnd the rest of it would be a bunch of technical stuff supporting other Maths, confusing the "interoperability" with rigor.Like, yeah mf...if you change shit so its focused on certain attributed it will "be" that thing, but if it touches reality then I side on the reality side. Arbitrary has a place, just isnt Applied Mathematics.
>>16943220The letter of the law *is* the spirit of mathematics. Literally the whole point is to define terms and logical structure rigorously and without ambiguity. Hell, "letter of the law" is downstream of this spirit. The reason "legalese" has grown so opaque over the course of human civilization is because legal interpretation is so wrought with people who seek to contort any semblance of ambiguity to their own ends.
>>16943371>people who seek to contort any semblance of ambiguity to their own endsFair point, I have to count all of these for Applied, not everyone does/needs to, and work backwards, forming the Law from the sample set. I then compare works with each other.But the very seeking of "and without ambiguity" starts a clock or adding shit to the definition until its pages long or totally different all together to fit the current era's Maths, hence "lost 1". In Applied it made "0" not be define as "null" but closer to "converging"....ah shit, lost "0".:skull:
>>16943341>>16943349>>16943352>>16943361>>16943379shut up schizomake a concise pointor leave, and stop shitting up the threadoh wait you cant because youre a schizo and as all schizos you're selfish and as all schizos you must shit out your stream of consciousness verbal diarrhea
>>16943228I've been dealing with this spammer for a while here too, anon. Truly a scourge to have such an annoying namefag let alone a namefag on >>>/sci/
>>16943386>make a concise point>>16943379>Fair point, I have to count all of these for Applied, not everyone does/needs to, and work backwards, forming the Law from the sample set.I DID.YOU HAVE SCHIZOPHRENIA LIKE YOUR PARENTS AND FRIENDS, STEREOTYPICAL MALADJUSTED HUEMANS.>youre a schizo>all schizos you're selfishWas Psychology or Psychiatry your thesis, or are you )))forgetting((( who you are again...lost in "Anonymity"?>your stream of consciousness>>16943334>This thread topic would be about Pure Mathematics and Linguistics. Do you have expertise in either of these fields?Almost every post you responded to was on topic....you are not, how does this not correlate to Pure Mathematics or Linguistics? you are shitting up the thread with your (((derangement syndrome))).
>"I like smart people.">This inversely means more of whats wrong about you will become appearant to yourself.>They immediately hate what they see.>Revealing to me their self hatred and unwillingness to endure the shame of losing face in front of themselves.You dont like intelligence, you want to *be* what "is intelligent"...how self referencial and kinky. "Auto-ascending".
