how many here are ACTUALLY grad students or researchers and talk about their actual fields?I need to ask because 90% of the posts seem to be made by nonacademicians due to the overall retardness. not that academia isn't completely filled with retards, but I at least the jargon and technical knowledge indicates most here only heard the word science from watching big bang theory and thinks science is cool, quirky or some dumbshit
md/phd student. I never talk about my research on here (it would dox me) and only lurk to see what schizos and pseuds have to say about us and our field. It's mainly entertaining. There used to be decent discussion but >>17037533 described it perfectly. It's nice to see in this thread there's at least a few academics left, but looks like we don't feel like actually contributing anymore bc it's shit
>>17039745At least for me, contributions like yours and the others here mean a lot.Placid islands of intelligence on a sea of shit, boats will get rocked, but the trip's worth it.
>>17037055I'm an engineer. I hang out here because /g/ is filled with programming troons and is very boring. I hate scientists and think you are faggots btw
>>17037415Quranic queerology belongs to /his/ though.I just made that field up and was pretty shocked that this actually seems to be a thing. What's next? Quantum physics phds?
>>17042095>absolute madman said quantumeveryone pack up and leave, the schizos will be here any minute
bring me the best picture FROM SPACE (no telescopes) of the milky way
>>17038941interesting
>>17038941they need to tell the next astronaut to go on a mini-mission outside the space station to take pictures
>>17038965just today saw news about an astronaut going for maintenance work on the ISS, just take a pic niggers
>>17039254somebody ping ISS give them basic tips of photography and lighting (just avoid the earth moon and sun in the frame or direct sun light in the shot) and tell them to take a fucking pic of the milky way under optimal conditions, no long expossure cheating, nake eye-like photography. I assume they need to be on a maintenance jig right outside the station, take the chance.
>>17039945they're on maintenance duty rn, outside of the station, somebody tell them to grab a photography camera and take pics of the milky way with 0 lit objects in the frame. If not for this mission, next one then.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22073709
>>17041495This isnt first principles at all btw.
>>17041498I unironically trust vixra more than zenodo at this point. Mind you it's 0 + epsilon, but I digress.
>>17041495>https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22073709>60.00000000 MHz Nice decimal expansion faggot
>>17041495OP thinks a thousand people haven’t already done this with AI. I did this last month, with a framework similar to bosonic string theory
>>170420381/x^(1-1/×)>>17042040Zero is undefined >>17042061You are Welcome>>17042076Not String Theory with its 19+ hand placed numbers. Lol
Am I just retarded or is this movie extremely pretentious and cringy?
>>17040037It was cool as a spectacle until they got to the end with the 4th dimension stuff
>>17040037I love this movie regardless, but there are omissions and oversights in it that are distracting. They say there are multiple systems on the other end of the wormhole, and that 1 has 3 potential worlds. We spent 2 years travelling to Saturn and now we can travel between solar systems without a worry? Is the wormhole near Miller's planet? They never tell us. They at least establish that Miller's and Mann's planet orbit Gargantua, and that it will take a few months to travel to Mann's planet from Miller's which is close to the black hole. But where's Edmunds' planet? Where's the neutron star Cooper mentioned? The movie later implies and the Interstellar wiki states that Edmunds' planet isn't even in the Gargantua system, contradicting the "one system, three potential worlds" line. Does Edmunds' planet belong to a star orbiting Gargantua? I wish they properly established the layout of this new region.Miller's planet is also a mess. 23 years had passed, so they spent over 3 hours on the planet (7 years per hour). But there's no way 3 hours had passed. They explore and get swept up for 15 minutes at most, then CASE says it will take 45-60mins to drain the ship, and the next wave arrives by then. The interval makes no sense. They say Miller landed a few hours ago but died minutes before they arrived. So is the wave interval a few hours or 1 hour?>>17040215>earth is fucked, not explained whyCrops are failing because of blight and oxygen is running out, so I assume entire ecosystems are dying too. All they had left was corn>should we use our science to try and fix planet?>no let's use science to go to new planetIt was a secret mission done as a last resort to save humans from extinction. They were trying to fix the planet but failing>let's go to the time fuckery planet first, instead of lastIt makes sense if you assume Miller's planet is closest to the wormhole. Mann's planet is months away, and Edmunds' planet is in another system
>>17040261tenet at its core is still a good action film. interstellar is just soi-fi cringe
>>17040196>worked on and signed off by nobel laureate in physics kip thorne>kip thorne got multiple physics publications out of the work put into the movie>HURR DURR 1ST YEAR FIZIKS STOODENTS GET OFEENDED!maybe take some physics classes, talk to physicists and see why they were so excited about the movie. mouthbreathing ignoramus, don't you ever insult my profession like that again
>>17042059>They say Miller landed a few hours ago but died minutes before they arrivedThey never said this. Find a quote of the dialogue saying hours and minutes contradicting like that.
Help me understand this.Consider an object moving through space.If space is continuous then surely it must be comprised of an infinite number of points, with the object moving through one point at a time.If however space is discrete then the object must shunt from one discrete space to another in a series of jumps.Or do you think that space can just be subdivided infinitely without ever reaching a point? And therefore any object moving through space can also be subdivided infinitely?How do you rationalize this? What is your conception of space and movement?Waiting for Planck space answers too.
>>17030704>Space IS NOT continuousSpace is absolutely continuous, proven by objective measurement and observation>it IS NOT discreteYes, it isn't, because if it were discrete then there would be measurable discrepancies in motion, not only that it would require an absolute grid with a steady state which is preposterous.
>>17041989Emergent Space-time only exists within the field of the Universal Manifold. Only Information Exists Outside of that.
>>17042001
>>17042013Ranch
>>17030589
so like is there a reason that they teach the cross product at all instead of the more general wedge product, which isn't limited to 3D and 7D and from which you can very easily derive the cross product anyway?
>>17037375It just werks.
>>17037755Arguably true for all curricula in every discipline...
>>17037375Something that wraps up four equations of Maxwellinto one equation is good for me
>>17037375pre computer inertia, the gibbs-heavside truncation of Maxwell's into the telegraph equations using the vector algebra was simpler and yielded amicable results in their domains. They werent dealing with high dimensional vector databases, nor had weyl/dirac spinors been conceived so there wern't any of the appeal to quantum physics available>>17037433Its a centuries long battle at this point. the geometric algebra aught to win though, if not only by the basis on the distinguishability between polar and axial vectors
>>17037755yep
What are your favourite Springer SUMS books? I have a month before uni starts again and I want to learn something new but their catalogue is huge. Help me!Btw, NO combinatorics. I fucking hate that shit.
>>17033538Everyone (worth their salt) in math knows how to code. Now all that's left is chad-research only two people will ever read. Just as God intended.
>>17033517>hate that shitWhat are your most hated combinatorics books, OP?
>>17033517
>>17033802nice
https://youtu.be/C92XdXWV5vg?is=mirsthQHiB9aBlPJSo if I wanted to auramax by playing russian roulette repeatedly to show I'm not scared, do I roll the revolver each time I shoot or just once at the start?
Assuming a perfectly fair revolver (unlikely, but let's roll with it) your cumulative odds for shooting yourself with no respin are:n: [math]p = \frac{n}{6}[/math]1: [math]p = \frac{1}{6}[/math]2: [math]p = \frac{1}{3}[/math]3: [math]p = \frac{1}{2}[/math]4: [math]p = \frac{2}{3}[/math]5: [math]p = \frac{5}{6}[/math]6: [math]p = 1[/math]And with respin:n: [math]p = 1-{\left(\frac{n}{6}\right)}^n[/math]1: [math]p = \frac{1}{6}[/math]2: [math]p = \frac{11}{36}[/math]3: [math]p = \frac{91}{216}[/math]etc.In terms of discrete pulls. Two is about equally risky with or without spins (basically a 1-in-3). Six with is about as dangerous as four without. Ten with is about as dangerous as five without.
>>17040327why isn't the probability for respins:p = 1/(7-n)or even,1: p = 1/62: p = 1/(6*5)3: p = 1/(6*5*4)...and so on.
>>17040365The “empty chamber” chit is tossed back into the urn upon each spin.
>>17040365Your probability for not getting shot is (5/6)^n with each reroll.Thus your probability of getting shot is 1-(5/6)^n.Your cumulative odds eventually approach 1, but it grows more slowly than without the reroll.
>>17040327nice result
Imagine you're going to walk a ten mile distance. In every 1/10 of a mile mark there's a stack of gold coins in the ground. You know each stack has between 1 and 100 coins randomly. You can only see one stack at a time. Along the ten miles, you can only grab one stack with you, never turn back and never switch the stack once you have chosen one. You can only do this challenge once./Sci/entifically and mathematically speaking, what strategy should you use to secure the maximum amount of gold?
>>17036444I don't know if I fully understand what you're saying here. What exactly do you mean by the "50 case at 2000 coins"? Do you mean a version of this gold problem where each stack has 1-2000 coins and we're considering the 50th stage? If so, my approach certainly doesn't give that stage a value of 100000 (and for that matter, all stages are valued less than 2000, as needed). I'm happy to explain more if you want.Also, if your post does pertain to the gold problem, I don't model entrance fees at all, since they don't exist in the original problem.
>>17037304You must give up the current stack to keep playing the game. This is the entrance fee by equivalence, lose x for opportunity y. What I am saying is I think the other model is overcounting these entrance fees, two upward shots at >50 is going to strictly be greater than a single shot but that model doesn't reflect this.
>>17037321>You must give up the current stack to keep playing the game. This is the entrance fee by equivalence, lose x for opportunity y.Yes, this makes sense>What I am saying is I think the other model is overcounting these entrance fees, two upward shots at >50 is going to strictly be greater than a single shot but that model doesn't reflect this.What is an "upward shot"? I don't see how we're overcounting by using the observed number of coins on the current stack as the entrance fee: isn't this exactly what we are losing by moving on without taking the stack (provided we haven't already picked up a stack, of course)?
>>17032754>>17032841nope. it's 1 to 100 coins randomly, so every stack could be 1. what you do is pick the first stack that has more than 50, or, if you reach the half way point finding none, then you begin to reduce the number you'll accept proportionately to how many stacks remain. if you get to the last stack having taken none, you take it.
>>17032754nice
What in the fuck is this and how does someone even come up with this in 1924.I can't even draw it. Someone was nice enough to make a rendering in a 3D modeling program.It's like a combination of non-Euclidian geometry and topological knot theory and fractal geometry that isn't spherical geometry specifically. And it's the most disturbing and confusing and fucked up thing I've ever seen.
>>17041324>I know you watch vsauce video on this.Formula goes like this:C0 = Circle with intersect of 2 perpendicular equal radius circles{C1, C2}.C1 = Circle with intersect of 2 perpendicular equal radius circles{C3 , C4}.C2 =Circle with intersect of 2 perpendicular equal radius circles{C5, C6}.C(N) = Circle with intersect of 2 perpendicular axes of equal radius circles{C(N+1), C(N+2 }.
>>17041478Accurate
>>17041439https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_horned_sphereRead this. Don’t come back.
>>17041324Intuitive
1/root 88 112 136 160 184 208 232 square 81 100 121 144 169 196 225 index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 64 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 (256 1024)256 - 64 = 192 / (base root) 8 = 24We want the amount of squares in between 64 256 including 256 = 8 (always the root of course):So here are mapping offsets:For > 64….. and < 256:88 = 7 (always base power of 4 square (64) root = 8 -1 ) no math beyond getting the 7112 = 12136 = 15160 = 16 (always root * 2)184 = 15208 = 12232 = 7for > 256….. and < 1024:Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
forgot to mention - if you want > 4 index, you do index - 4, this gives you reverse values to go back down. Whereas usually it's 4 - index for < 4.I also want to make it clear the relative "4" position is always root*2. So between 64 - 256, that's 16. (8 * 2 = 16).256 - 1024 would be 32. (16 * 2 = 32).This "half way" point is ALWAYS Root*2.Also want to clarify that the linear divisions are ALWAYS in between the actual locations of the squares number wise. So it never overlaps.You also want to figure out which left or right linear divisions on either side of your input number is closer to.
yeah so this is kinda ground breaking. Throughout history people said it was impossible to calculate square roots without repeating/looping steps. I proved them wrong. This is the next level of square root calculations right here...
I'm not positive anyone knows what you're trying to communicate. Based on your description I have no Idea how I would attempt to use this method of yours.It is not coherent.
Verdict: **QUACK** (with a tiny kernel of standard high-school algebra disguised under heavy pseudo-scientific jargon).While the arithmetic in their specific example works out, the claim that this is a "groundbreaking" or "super fast" new method for calculating square roots is completely false. Here is the breakdown of what is actually happening, why the numbers work, and why the claim is quackery.---### 1. What the poster actually "discovered" (The Math Behind It)The poster is noticing the mathematical difference between a **straight line** (linear interpolation) and a **curve** (a parabola, $y = x^2$).They took the interval between $8^2 = 64$ and $16^2 = 256$.* The distance between 64 and 256 is $192$.* If you divide 192 into 8 equal steps, each step is $24$.* This creates a straight line: 64, 88, 112, 136, 160, 184, 208, 232, 256.Then, they compared this straight line to actual perfect squares ($9^2=81$, $10^2=100$, etc.) and looked at the difference (the "offset"):* $88 - 81 = 7$Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Say something nice about them
Trivial shit by some fag. Probably used AI also
>>17039589The Chudnovskys did it better
Is this wrong?
Which part of it would be wrong?
>>17038130The nature of zero.https://github.com/Puronbo/Law-Of-Repulsive-Emanation/blob/main/docs/THE_UNIVERSAL_ZERO.pdf
It is wrong to look at this and think it is interesting and then brag about how you are amazing because you are a mathematician at heart.
>>17039500hmm...partially
>>17038106The issue with 0 in fields and similar "number like" structures is that it has too many properties that would lead to contradictions should a multiplicative inverse exist. Things become easier if you drop things that make it a field, such as distributivity, but that will lead to you losing properties such as -a=-1*a, and the result will not meaningfully resemble anything you would consider a number.
Why doesn't [math]\frac{e + \pi}{2}[/math] have a name
>>17039095>equationhow is it more of an equation than pi or e?they all require equations to definei could argue only integers and fractions are true constants
>>17039083Anon's Conjecture(e + pi)/2 is transcendental>Alas this greentext is too small to c
>>17038552Pretty sure 0 and 1 are both constants and are both more important.
>>17039316i realized that after i posted itbesides those
>>17038069give an integral with this constant as a result, then name the integral after anon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YEZiDtnbdA
Oldie but goldie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BipvGD-LCjU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtMThings used to be so hopeful back then.
>>17038148https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9rLxGoRYjk
>>17038148https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2fsKgxr-Zo
>>17039296This is great. I remember seeing this 1 or 2 years after it was uploaded. A hit in college math club and often covered by others.
