Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Discord #Drugs Channel Now Open

Freaking math man

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:09:16 EST I+l45cST No.14831
File: 1438196956144.jpg -(22700B / 22.17KB, 560x247) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Freaking math man
So pics related, why is it possible that the original formula can't be solved for x=1, but the formula after applying a series of transformation rules can be solved for x=1.
I mean, it should be the same formula but only written differently, right? Am I "not getting" something extremely basic here?
3 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Albert Blingerridge - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:29:45 EST i84x+n57 No.14836 Reply
>But if you rewrite a formula it should have the same outcome for every value of the variable, right? By factoring the result of that formula is changed for one value, so it basically isn't the same formula anymore?
Factoring doesn't change anything. It's the last step where the (x-1) terms are cancelled that changes things, and what you're left with is NOT equal to the original equation. Cancelling these terms is the same as division by zero (which of course is an illegal operation) UNLESS you specify x≠1. This means that the first and last functions are equal for all values of x except x=1. The last function essentially fills the "hole" in at x=1 with the limit i.e. 3/2.
Angus Sommlehood - Sun, 20 Sep 2015 00:19:57 EST xgdLZpNp No.14903 Reply

You get two answers when you square, because of parabolas, and that's why we have to deal with absolute values, too.

Probability off by factor if 10

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:01:05 EST gibSXrA4 No.14889
File: 1442260865295.jpg -(45730B / 44.66KB, 329x347) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Probability off by factor if 10
Using two different methods to find probability, I'm getting the same number but off by a factor of 10

>Five cards are dealt from 52-card deck; what is the probability that we draw 3 Aces & 2 Kings?
  • Method 1 (wrong):
4/52 + 3/51 + 2/50 + 4/49 + 3/48 = 9.23e-7

  • Method 2:
[(4 choose 3)*(4 choose 2)] / (52 choose 5) = 9.23e-6, which is the right answer she says.

So why is it that method 1 (which seems more intuitive to me) gives an answer that's off by 10?
4 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Alice Cunderchut - Thu, 17 Sep 2015 22:05:25 EST qCDKBx4v No.14900 Reply
Thank for the explanations, I didn't realize that order matters when the variables are independent (it almost seems it should be the other way around), but I'll probably stick to method 2, which is the newer one that was taught to me.

Thanks for teaching me!

Help Understading

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:56:12 EST 08s9kFJy No.14868
File: 1440824172492.jpg -(30040B / 29.34KB, 400x346) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Help Understading
Hey /math/. I think this is the first time I've been on this board, so I hope I'm not being terribly annoying by asking what is probably a very basic question, but I can't find an answer I understand in my textbook and google returns too many results to be useful.

I'm taking a survey of statistics class as part of a dental hygiene degree I'm pursuing and I'm having trouble understanding the procedure of a simple random sample. Specifically, this particular question:
You have a sampling frame of 75 people, from whom you wish to randomly select a sample of size 4. Use the portion of the random number table below to determine which people will be selected for the simple random sample, assuming the sampling frame is numbered from 01-75.

68108 89266 94730 95761 75023 48464 65544 96583 18911 16391


I'm having trouble understanding exactly what they're asking me to do. Am I supposed to assume that these 10 listen numbers are the first 10 (01-10) of a hypothetical list of 75 total numbers and I should thus pick 68108, 89266, 94730, and 95761 as the answer? Or is this a trick question and I can just pick any 4 of these numbers and they would be correct? Or am I just completely lost?

Thank you in advance for any help.
1 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Albert Pittham - Sun, 30 Aug 2015 07:29:23 EST 08s9kFJy No.14870 Reply
1440934163887.jpg -(186879B / 182.50KB, 1038x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Okay, that actually makes a lot of sense. I appreciate the help, I've got a variety of dyslexia so it's always nice when someone can explain things plainly. Thank you Phoebe. I bequeath you these triangles.


View Thread Reply
- Wed, 01 Apr 2015 01:56:35 EST Qzq4CNd5 No.14679
File: 1427867795825.jpg -(50114B / 48.94KB, 400x392) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Googol
When will it be relevant?
And the googolplex?
What use is this magnitude?
Is scale true?
10 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Edward Goodspear - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 05:16:15 EST KL4t08uw No.14846 Reply
That real value you gave is just the principle value. There are an ifinite number of branches when raising a general complex number to a complex power like that.
Nell Bindlewere - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 13:57:37 EST x6xydNWl No.14847 Reply
This is, of course, true. I think branch cuts are the only thing I don't like about complex analysis. I like my smooth functions to be well-defined, thank you very much.
Nell Bindlewere - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 13:58:36 EST x6xydNWl No.14848 Reply
I guess by well-defined, I mean single-valued (nb)


View Thread Reply
- Mon, 13 Jul 2015 23:37:34 EST rBg8Fq2S No.14815
File: 1436845054145.jpg -(71439B / 69.76KB, 640x625) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.          
How do you measure intelligence?
1 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Nakura !xMsGPnYjBI - Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:06:10 EST NAU1L+Of No.14817 Reply
Intelligence Scientists are working to improve IQ tests, remember, there's actually many different IQ tests, but only a few in wide use. Along with EQ (Emotional Intelligence) tests. IQ tests are a fantastic way to measure intelligence, although crude compared to the actual complexity of the intelligence of a human being.

I've seen people have intense chess games, losing their minds, battling to settle who loses an IQ point, dark games, for brilliant young minds. Computers are people too.
Molly Pedgeham - Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:34:45 EST uAPhVfTX No.14862 Reply

>Computers are people too.

Computers aren't people, but people are computers.
Jack Peddlewill - Wed, 09 Sep 2015 10:23:07 EST BG0DExq5 No.14884 Reply
I have a strange view of intelligence. I think if you're a genius at making music or doing math, you might not even be that intelligent, because at that point you're a complex machine that excels at doing a job. I find myself defining intelligence in terms of how stupid you're not. What I mean exactly is this: I define intelligence as how good you are at induction. I think that's strange because solid reasoning is not inductive. On the other hand, if you're a human in a world as complex as this, you're almost never able to get all the information you need in order to acquire an accurate understanding of something. I think your ability to reach a correct understanding with incomplete information is a measure of how intelligent you are. For example, if game changing advances in solar technology happen every few months, and you have a cousin that thinks any real advance in solar technology would be followed by the government assassinating a scientist, your cousin isn't very intelligent. (True story).

Greatest Mathematical Achievements

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 27 May 2015 00:57:30 EST So3FHAh7 No.14750
File: 1432702650249.jpg -(680855B / 664.90KB, 1000x667) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Greatest Mathematical Achievements
In today's world, what's the greatest achievement a mathematician can reach?

What's the greatest "honor" a mathematician can receive?
26 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Priscilla Blingerlin - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 00:25:22 EST mJf1tiy7 No.14839 Reply

Simple finite groups are analogous to atoms. They are the basic units of construction for other, larger things. Simple finite groups combine to form larger, more complicated finite groups. The Enormous Theorem organizes these groups the way the periodic table organizes the elements. It says that every simple finite group belongs to one of three families-or to a fourth family of wild outliers. The largest of these rogues, called the Monster, has more than 1053 elements and exists in 196,883 dimensions. (There is even a whole field of investigation called monsterology in which researchers search for signs of the beast in other areas of math and science.) The first finite simple groups were identified by 1830, and by the 1890s mathematicians had made new inroads into finding more of those building blocks. Theorists also began to suspect the groups could all be put together in a big list.
Mathematicians in the early 20th century laid the foundation for the Enormous Theorem, but the guts of the proof did not materialize until midcentury. Between 1950 and 1980-a period which mathematician Daniel Gorenstein of Rutgers University called the "Thirty Years' War" -- heavyweights pushed the field of group theory further than ever before, finding finite simple groups and grouping them together into families. These mathematicians wielded 200-page manuscripts like algebraic machetes, cutting away abstract weeds to reveal the deepest foundations of symmetry. (Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., referred to the onslaught of discovery of strange, beautiful groups as a "magnificent zoo.")
Those were heady times: Richard Foote, then a graduate student at the University of Cambridge and now a professor at the University of Vermont, once sat in a dank office and witnessed two famous theorists -- John Thompson, now at the University of Florida, and John Conway, now at Princeton University -- hashing out the details of a particularly unwieldy group. "It was amazing, like two Titans with lightning going between their brains," Foote says. "They never seemed to be at a loss for some absolutely wonderful and totally off-the-wall techniques for doing something. It was breathtaking."
It was during these decades that two of the proof's biggest milestones occurred. In 1963 a theorem by mathematicians Walter Feit and John Thompson laid out a recipe for finding more simple finite groups. After that breakthrough, in 1972 Gorenstein laid out a 16-step plan for proving the Enormous Theorem -- a project that would, once and for all, put all the finite simple groups in their place. It involved bringing together all the known finite simple groups, finding the missing ones, putting all the pieces into appropriate categories and proving there could not be any others. It was big, ambitious, unruly and, some said, implausible.
YET GORENSTEIN was a charismatic algebraist, and his vision energized a new group of mathematicians -- with ambitions neither simple nor finite -- who were eager to make their mark. "He was a larger than life personality," says Lyons, who is at Rutgers. "He was tremendously aggressive in the way he conceived of problems and conceived of solutions. And he was very persuasive in convincing other people to help him."
Solomon, who describes his first encounter with group theory as "love at first sight," met Gorenstein in 1970. The National Science Foundation was hosting a summer institute on group theory at Bowdoin College, and every week mathematical celebrities were invited to the campus to give a lecture. Solomon, who was then a graduate student, remembers Gorenstein's visit vividly. The mathematical celebrity, just arrived from his summer home on Martha's Vineyard, was electrifying in both appearance and message.
"I'd never seen a mathematician in hot-pink pants before," Solomon recalls.
In 1972, Solomon says, most mathematicians thought that the proof would not be done by the end of the 20th century. But within four years the end was in sight. Gorenstein largely credited the inspired methods and feverish pace of Aschbacher, who is a professor at the California Institute of Technology, for hastening the proof's completion.
One reason the proof is so huge is that it stipulates that its list of finite simple groups is complete. That means the list includes …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Priscilla Blingerlin - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 00:26:13 EST mJf1tiy7 No.14840 Reply

Gorenstein envisioned a series of books that would neatly collect all the disparate pieces and streamline the logic to iron over idiosyncrasies and eliminate redundancies. In the 1980s the proof was inaccessible to all but the seasoned veterans of its forging. Mathematicians had labored on it for decades, after all, and wanted to be able to share their work with future generations. A second-generation proof would give Gorenstein a way to assuage his worries that their efforts would be lost amid heavy books in dusty libraries.
Gorenstein did not live to see the last piece put in place, much less raise a glass at the Smith and Baxter house. He died of lung cancer on Martha's Vineyard in 1992. "He never stopped working," Lyons recalls. "We had three conversations the day before he died, all about the proof. There were no good-byes or anything; it was all business."
THE FIRST VOLUME of the second-generation proof appeared in 1994. It was more expository than a standard math text and included only two of 30 proposed sections that could entirely span the Enormous Theorem. The second volume was published in 1996, and subsequent ones have continued to the present -- the sixth appeared in 2005.
Foote says the second-generation pieces fit together better than the original chunks. "The parts that have appeared are more coherently written and much better organized," he says. "From a historical perspective, it's important to have the proof in one place. Otherwise, it becomes sort of folklore, in a sense. Even if you believe it's been done, it becomes impossible to check."
Solomon and Lyons are finishing the seventh book this summer, and a small band of mathematicians have already made inroads into the eighth and ninth. Solomon estimates that the streamlined proof will eventually take up 10 or 11 volumes, which means that just more than half of the revised proof has been published.
Solomon notes that the 10 or 11 volumes still will not entirely cover the second-generation proof. Even the new, streamlined version includes references to supplementary volumes and previous theorems, proved elsewhere. In some ways, that reach speaks to the cumulative nature of mathematics: every proof is a product not only of its time but of all the thousands of years of thought that came before.
In a 2005 article in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, mathematician E. Brian Davies of King's College London pointed out that the "proof has never been written down in its entirety, may never be written down, and as presently envisaged would not be comprehensible to any single individual." His article brought up the uncomfortable idea that some mathematical efforts may be too complex to be understood by mere mortals. Davies's words drove Smith and his three co-authors to put together the comparatively concise book that was celebrated at the party in Oak Park.
The Enormous Theorem's proof may be beyond the scope of most mathematicians -- to say nothing of curious amateurs -- but its organizing principle provides a valuable tool for the future. Mathematicians have a long-standing habit of proving abstract truths decades, if not centuries, before they become useful outside the field.
"One thing that makes the future exciting is that it is difficult to predict," Solomon observes. "Geniuses come along with ideas that nobody of our generation has had. There is this temptation, this wish and dream, that there is some deeper understanding still out there."
THESE DECADES of deep thinking did not only move the proof forward; they built a community. Judith Baxter -- who trained as a mathematician- says group theorists form an unusually social group. "The people in group theory are often lifelong friends," she observes. "You see them at meetings, travel with them, go to parties with them, and it is really is a wonderful community."
Not surprisingly, these mathematicians who lived through the excitement of finishing the first iteration of the proof are eager to preserve its ideas. Accordingly, Solomon and Lyons have recruited other mathematicians to help them finish the new version and preserve it for the future. That is not easy: many younger mathematicians see the proof as something that has already been done, and they are eager for something different.
In addition, workin…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

please solve my math problem

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:31:58 EST C4sQWBeJ No.14825
File: 1437744718231.jpg -(83357B / 81.40KB, 640x631) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. please solve my math problem
Im trying to figure out how much paper I have to pick up at work...
A roll of paper weighing in at 4200 pounds and a diameter of 50". If I have to cut off let's say an inch of paper, how much would that inch weigh?
To tired for math
2 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Simon Pommerhat - Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:42:18 EST i84x+n57 No.14828 Reply
>diameter of the roll
Meant radius of the roll. FML, apparently forgot my thinking cap today.
Frederick Naddlebet - Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:35:38 EST Va1A/b0+ No.14829 Reply
Thank you so much for that. Now I can tell my boss how ridiculous it is to pick that up twenty times a day.
Clara Claywell - Sat, 25 Jul 2015 14:55:57 EST i84x+n57 No.14830 Reply
No prob. How were you supposed to lift that much weight? I don't know how giant rolls of paper are usually transported.

dot dot dot

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 13 Jun 2015 01:58:32 EST F9AJX/Os No.14795
File: 1434175112341.jpg -(1700031B / 1.62MB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. dot dot dot
So the symbol of ... in mathematics is kind've confusing I've realized. Or an ellipsis. or just "that dot dot dot thing". whatever the hell you wanna call it.


both use the ... symbol, and in very different ways. In the first example, I think most people would say that it means a decimal point followed by an infinite amount of 9s. I would agree.

But it would be wrong to assume the same in the second case, as the number I was obviously stating is pi, and as such is irrational therefore doesn't have infinite repeating digits.
Nakura !xMsGPnYjBI - Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:37:37 EST NAU1L+Of No.14819 Reply
The (...) in the decimal form of pi represents the decimal sequence continuing in an infinite series of numerals with the complexity state holding at that expected for pi.
Does that make sense?
Martha Nimmledock - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:18:21 EST AopNL+nM No.14833 Reply
Only a nerd would complain about something like that.

Math Anxiety (Know the material)

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 09 Jul 2015 04:44:52 EST oIF65CiW No.14812
File: 1436431492596.jpg -(73899B / 72.17KB, 500x492) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Math Anxiety (Know the material)
I have horrible math test anxiety.

Originally, I thought it had to do with failing to practice enough. I never had math anxiety or problems with tests in school up to ~algebra 2 (I never took AP classes, I had to start working.) I will admit, I tried to slack off at first but I knocked it off. You can even find a panic post of mine on this board if you look hard enough. I did alright on that test, but not what I could have done.

That was my wake up call.

I realized, going into college and having not used math, it made sense that I'd have to work harder than others to understand the material at first.

I started doing an insane amount of problems - the homework and then more on top of it. I re-took the class.

No. I get into a Calc test and am fine at first. I browse the whole test and smile because I covered all of the material. I did problems upon problems - I have a stack of printer full of shit (not an entire ream... but a lot), and yet, as I go through, I fall apart. I am slow and the clock ticks, and I can't remember simple concepts. I bomb. I do worse than before I prepared well!

I end up start switching endlessly from problem to problem because I'm missing little factoring issues or I used f'' instead of f'. I mean, for fuck's sake, I couldn't formally derive d/dx(x^1/2) using a limit... it's not difficult in the slightest. It's like I forget how to use LCDs and the simplest crap when I am tested.

I'm almost paranoid that there will just be algebraic tricks I'm not accustomed to and so sometimes I go down the wrong path solving a problem I could have done easily with a method I knew.

During tests, lately I write down as this happens what I had trouble with and when I get to the car I solve it no problem.

Has anyone dealt with this? Let me make it clear - I am not slacking. I know the material, from limits all the way up to... I think we stopped at integration of cylindrical shells.

I did go to my professor. He shat all over me.

Nathaniel Niggerfuck - Mon, 13 Jul 2015 05:34:55 EST Dk8yywxc No.14813 Reply

Everyone goes through this to a certain extent, some much more so than others. Sadly this is the limitation of the grading system, that someone like you with good understanding will slip through.

My advice is:

1) Slow down with your problems. You might be burning through stacks of problems without taking the time to think about what's going on, memorizing methods without developing any intuition. If you're going too fast or writing illegibly, you could be doing work that the grader can't make sense of, or worse you can't make sense of when you come back to the problem if you need to.

2) Don't be afraid to make mistakes. It's ok to have a shit ton of scratch paper to try again, if you've gone down a fruitless path try something different. I'm not saying half ass a bunch of different approaches, but if something just isn't working move on and come back to it.

3) Read the test, think about how you'll do each problem, then start doing the grunt work. The way math often works is that your brain is confused by a problem at first, but when you come back to it, it may be crystal clear. This is what's happening when you get back to your car, you've primed yourself for the problem on the test and it's then crystal clear when you take the second look at it. There's something subconscious going on, but if you read something and come back to it later you'll find that you have been processing it without noticing.

4) Calm down. It's easy to get worked up about things, it's just a test that you're prepared for and you can do it. Try doing something that calms you down before a test, such as drinking a coffee, reading a favorite short story, sitting under a tree with a cigarette, whatever it is you like.

5) After you do a practice problems, don't just do an entirely different set the next time you study. Try looking back over your work, think about why you did something and whether it could have been better, reflect not only on the method itself but why you chose that particular method for the problem at hand.

6) Talk to your student affairs. Many institutions will give you special testing circumstances if you can convince them you have test anxiety, such as extra time or taking it alone rather than in a massive exam hall.
Jack Peddlewill - Wed, 09 Sep 2015 10:44:18 EST BG0DExq5 No.14886 Reply
Fucking quality advice. The only advice I have is based on my personal experience. My friends and I were in calculus (I never imagined in a million years I'd be in calculus but I was a high school stoner and the hard classes were the trippiest. I'm doing my 4th year of a physics degree now. Crazy how drugs can affect your life.), and we realized that our math ability was extremely lacking, so we had to take over our own math education in order to be comfortable with ourselves. The thing that changed me forever was taking over mathematics, because it's something that belongs to me. I think crazy and natural thoughts in private, I listen to Terence Mckenna and random psychedelic nonsense and I just own math. It's mine now. So when I sit in front of an exam, I'm totally shocked; because somehow my private hobby is showing up at school. Also, if you're someone who cares about math, nothing is more amazing than an exam. Think about it, you MUST sit there for 3 hours and do math with no distractions. There's no way out. That's the fastest 3 hours of your life, and if you identify math as being home, it's funny. That's the only way I can describe it. How dare you challenge me in my home turf. (Not very modest but if you're dealing with math anxiety, fuck all modesty). I'm not even very mathematically talented, but if you want to get rid of math anxiety, you need to make it a part of your world that you're fond of.

Helpful Youtube channels

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 04 Jun 2015 09:55:27 EST jNXUmpxk No.14775
File: 1433426127702.jpg -(104903B / 102.44KB, 750x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Helpful Youtube channels
Hey /math/,

I'm taking a satistics course this summer to fulfill my last credit for community college, and I was wondering if you guys know of any good Youtube channels to help me out through. We're currently going over probability, and it flew right over my head.

Cyril Gebblecocke - Thu, 04 Jun 2015 09:57:20 EST jNXUmpxk No.14776 Reply
help me through this*

tired, sorry

Good Ideas Thread

View Thread Reply
!xMsGPnYjBI - Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:45:04 EST NAU1L+Of No.14808
File: 1435527904730.jpg -(75565B / 73.79KB, 1280x853) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Good Ideas Thread
Fourier analysis applied to violent events and plotted on a complex plane could assist in finding the root cause of violent events and prevent their occurence in the future. Wave dispersion field devices, in the future, could prevent violent behavior, by taking advantage of wavelengths determined by psychodynamical theory and data, and influencing neuronal firing patterns in the brain. It would work similarly to how radios already work, but calibrated much more carefully.
Frederick Nullyman - Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:19:30 EST rS9AJec8 No.14809 Reply

>the root cause of violent events

jolly african-americans.

>prevent their occurence in the future

Remove watermelon.

Passed test slayer

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 17 May 2015 12:48:46 EST muTtSqY/ No.14736
File: 1431881326142.jpg -(90587B / 88.46KB, 689x891) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Passed test slayer
What's up /math/, I just got 84% on a test I was really worried about fuck yeah. But one question I couldn't answer, it seems like it's insoluble, can you help me out?

A rocket is traveling through space at a speed of 7500 m/s. If in one second it burns 710 kg of fuel, what is the change in momentum during this time interval in kg m/s.

Don't you need the exhaust velocity of the rocket to solve this? Thanks
2 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Jarvis Bardson - Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:05:29 EST x6xydNWl No.14800 Reply
Guys, look at the units. Momentum is Mass x velocity. Velocity is fixed, change in mass is given. Find change in momentum.

Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a straightforward elementary physics problem.
Jarvis Bardson - Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:08:54 EST x6xydNWl No.14801 Reply
Nathaniel has the right of it. Sorry I didn't see that sooner.

NB for double post.
Cedric Dubbersare - Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:28:42 EST nyIjuDfA No.14802 Reply
1434644922866.jpg -(910642B / 889.30KB, 1440x2560) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

It's a "restate the momentum equation" kind of problem. You're calculating the change in Momentum"dM" over a given time period "dt". Naturally, we all remember that momentum"M" is given by mass"m" times velocity aka: M=m*v. We're given both the velocity"v" and the change in mass"dm" over a period of time"dt" so the equation looks like "dMomentum/dt = dmass/dt * v" fortunately for us, the "dt"s on both sides of the equation have a value of 1 second and can be ignored because anything/1=anything. this problem is now a simple multiplication problem: "dM = -710kg * 7500m/s" which anyone may plug into a calculater at their leasure.

Good night, sweet prince.

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 24 May 2015 14:29:23 EST z/dIPyff No.14746
File: 1432492163853.jpg -(193654B / 189.12KB, 567x855) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Good night, sweet prince.
John F. Nash Jr., a mathematician who shared a Nobel Prize in 1994 for work that greatly extended the reach and power of modern economic theory and whose decades-long descent into severe mental illness and eventual recovery were the subject of a book and a 2001 film, both titled “A Beautiful Mind,” was killed, along with his wife, in a car crash on Saturday in New Jersey. He was 86.
5 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Nicholas Chingerperk - Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:14:16 EST QIXSgr8C No.14790 Reply
media didnt make as much of an event of it
Basil Sasslehut - Fri, 12 Jun 2015 23:48:17 EST rp0UlP7W No.14794 Reply
It's just weird, even my friends who are mathematicians didn't say anything about it but posted something about John Nash. I guess it's amazing what a movie can do to public perception. No disrespect to Nash I'm just kinda bummed that Grothendieck wasn't appreciated when he was one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century.
Fanny Soddlestut - Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:37:56 EST QBhQLlLE No.14798 Reply

No one can deny that Nash was more well known than Grothendieck. Not to disparage Grothendieck, but I think Nash focused on much more practical and "relevant" areas of mathematics such as game theory and computer science, which is interesting to everyone, while Grothendieck was more of a specialist in the field of Algebraic Geometry and Topos theory, which is niche. Nash also did excellent Algebraic Geometry.

Basically, Nash achieved more and had a more interesting story and received more attention as a result. They were both great mathematicians and their death is a huge loss, but Nash was a bigger deal for many reasons.

Drinking your wallet

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 12 Jun 2015 02:09:00 EST vX6Harxq No.14791
File: 1434089340591.png -(290633B / 283.82KB, 500x746) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Drinking your wallet
I thought this was a question for hooch, but I have a second thought here.

Say you pour a $8.00 bottle of vodka into a glass. You suddenly envision coins dripping out of the bottle. My question for you, what coin were you seeing?
Whitey Criffingbanks - Fri, 12 Jun 2015 05:32:17 EST i84x+n57 No.14792 Reply
1434101537564.jpg -(143308B / 139.95KB, 1024x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
$8 for a 750 ml bottle? I'd imagine diarrhea dripping out, not coins.

Assuming we're talking about US currency and 750 ml bottles, using the penny - the coin with the greatest volume to value - you'd only fill the bottle up close to 2/5 of the way. This is assuming that the pennies sorta melt like the watches in pic related, which is a fair assumption considerring your wording. This way we don't have to worry about space between the pennies.
Clara Wennerfock - Sat, 13 Jun 2015 06:22:58 EST YsOAl7K9 No.14797 Reply
I'm assuming it's half that size. That sounds about right. It's cheap but might not make you go blind.

Anyway it's 2.13(recurring) cents per ml at that quality/quantity. Vodka is about 37% alcohol and a smidge of glycerine if it's that cheap. Glycerol is about 1.2g/ml water is 1 and alcohol is .789. Vodka can be up to 40% but by assuming it's cheap shit. Glycerine is like 5% and the rest water so 1 ml is .05*1.2g + .37*.789g + .58g

a cent has a displacement of about .0433ml while the current rate is about .46ml per cent so US cents are probably pretty appropriate actually.

If ti's a 350ml bottle it's probably dead on.

If you're that desperate to get drunk buy some cheap cider though. White lightning actually does taste like it's been through someone's kidneys already but it's got the same alcohol content in a 3 litre bottle as a quart of vodka and when I was young enough to be desperate it was about 1/3 of the price of the absolute worst vodka I could get that wasn't toxic and illegal.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.