Stupid Questions Thread

If you speak of atom density (or, since the strong forces keeping atoms together are short range: volume dentity), then at the same density, using Helium will give you a lighter collection than using Uranium.

In the unlikely case you speak of proton density, then no.

This isn't the stupid questions thread btw.

Thanks a lot!

When you finish it, be sure to follow along with Real World Haskell.
>book.realworldhaskell.org/read/why-functional-programming-why-haskell.html

Do I have to eventually pay back IEHP insurance? I'm 27 years old and was wondering if I should apply to get health coverage.

>Do you think it's necessary to get a good grasp of the language?
Yes

There is a new book (being written, but you can buy it in advance and get chapters), that's supposed to blow all others out of the water

haskellbook.com/

Veeky Forums, I have these red spots on my crotch. Should I be worried/

How does proving the base case(mathematical induction) imply that the cases for the succeeding elements will also be true?

Bretty Normal, just give them a few days to improve before you worry

Do they become whiteheads? If so then not really. If they don't then maybe.

Should I take modafinil while I'm taking isotretinoin 20mg/day?
(this is for you, med/biofags, or anyone who has experience)

Is the inverse Laplace transform linear in the sense of [math]\mathscr{L}^{-1}(af(s)+bg(s)) = a\mathscr{L}^{-1}(f(s))+b\mathscr{L}^{-1}(g(s))[/math]?

yo, whats the min gpa requirement for cal poly school of engineering? srs q

to transfer btw

Can a regular language have uncountably many strings? My intuition says no but I'm not 100% sure.

Here's how induction works:

Show P(n) is true for 1, or whatever your base case is.

Then in the inductive step, you show that if there is some number for which P is true, it is also true for that number + 1. Since you already showed it's true for 1, it follows that it's true for 2. And because it's true for 2, it must be true for 3. And so on.

X2=2
I'm dumb, what is X?

1

[eqn]-e^{i\pi}+\frac{1}{12}+\sum_{n=1}^\infty n[/eqn]

These pops here sometimes, usually it's the hair's root fucking shit up, if you see one right in the center, I think you should pull it out.Works fine here.

yes, because the non-inverse Laplace transform is linear in precisely that sense.

Is there any way to analytically solve this problem I'm having?

I'm trying to find the equation of an ellipse whose closest point to P is 5m away from it. P is known - (60, 25) - and the rectangle and ellipse are centered on the plane. Ignore the outer, grey ellipse.

I've just been trying to figure it out through trial and error and it's annoying. Can it be analytically solved?

Thanks

Are you in intro calc? From looking at it, I think you can solve it like an optimization problem and then, in a way, reverse-engineer the required ellipse

What is the best book to learn to prove?
I have no prior knowledge of uni math besides selftaught calculus and lin alg

Where did all the ice water on comets come from?

I'm too dumb to get a degree in anything stem related, so I'm thinking a major in Finance with a minor in Accounting. Is this good?

stem encompasses a wide variety of majors,

and you dont even have to be "smart" to be a stem major

Book of Proof.

It's gratis.

Countably infinite number of strings.

I know, read my question again

Why is [math]x_{i}^{T}x_{j} = x_{i} . x_{j}[/math]? My linear algebra is kinda shit, but the left hand side seems to result in a matrix, while the right hand side seems to result in a scalar. What am I missing

Jesus christ our lord and saviour.

Nah, no intro calc. High school mate. Aussie mathematics.

The main problem I'm having is how do I find the point on the ellipse that is closest to the corner P? I was thinking that maybe the point on the ellipse that is closest to P would be the point that intersects with the line going through the centre and P. Or perhaps optimisation is the best way to go?

If j were transposed instead of i then it would be a matrix.

Oh I see, thanks user

What's this formula about?

Transformers

Oh yeah it's fourier transform

I remember years ago when I was learning Physics at school, one of the formulas for the straight line motion with constant velocity was:
X = Xo + Vt.Now, I'm relearning physics using the book University Physics with Modern Physics and one the second chapter, the one about straight-line motion, there is only straight-line motion with constant acceleration and there's not a single instance of said formula in that whole chapter. Is there any reason why such formula/concept is not taught on the book? Is such formula irrelevant?

He answered your question exactly.

>Even though CS is a pretty modern field and some companies don't give a shot about your degree as long as you can do their work

That's not CS, that's software development/engineering. And that's true, most software companies care more about your github than your gpa. If you do solid on the interview and demonstrate knowledge, they won't even care about your degree.

I've read a statement in a quantuminfo book that is supposed to be a triviality, but i still can't see why it is true, maybe some mathfag can help:

Suppose you have the (bounded), hermitian linear operators over the finite dimensional Hilbert space [math]\mathcal{H}=\mathbb{C}^d[/math],equipped with the standard operator ordering [math]A\ge B\Leftrightarrow\langle\psi|A|\psi\rangle\ge\langle\psi|B|\psi\rangle\forall|\psi\rangle\in\mathcal{H}[/math] .Than you take the convex set [math]\mathcal{E}=\left{A\in\mathcal{B(H)}|A\ge 0, A\le\mathbb{1}\right}[/math].
The statement is that the extremal elements of [math]\mathcal{E}[/math], the ones that don't admit a convex decomposition ([math]A=\lambda B+(1-\lambda) C, 0\le\lambda\le 1 \Rightarrow \lambda\in\left{0,1\right}[/math]), are projectors.

I belive that i need to start out from the spectral theorem: All [math]A\in\mathcal{E}[/math] can be written as [math]A=\sum\limits_i\lambda_iP_i[/math] where [math]P_i[/math] are orthogonal projectors and [math]0\le\lambda_i\le 1[/math], the problem is that this is still not a proper convex composition, because the sum of [math]\lambda_i[/math] is not necessarily 1, and if i try to normalize A in a way that i get [math]\sum\limits_i\lambda_i=1[/math], than it is impossible that the normalized A is an extremal element.

\mathbb{1} doesn't work out of the box, which is annoying.

Fuck this board, it just doesn't seem to register half my math tags.

Haskell or LISP?

There's a preview button for a reason

Is Haskell really worth the awkward framing of every problem in terms of Category Theory?

This is what finally made me put it down.

I'd like to see something like Oz or Mercury become popular tho

There is? Are you sure it's not a browser extension you use?

Here's the fix for . As a bonus I've fixed your typos too.

Suppose you have the (bounded), hermitian linear operators over the finite dimensional Hilbert space [math]\mathcal{H} = \mathbb{C}^d[/math], equipped with the standard operator ordering [math]A \ge B \Leftrightarrow \langle \psi |A| \psi \rangle \ge \langle \psi |B| \psi \rangle \forall | \psi \rangle \in \mathcal{H}[/math] . Then you take the convex set [math]\mathcal{E} = \left\lbrace A \in \mathcal{B(H)} |A \ge 0, A \le \mathbb{1} \right\rbrace[/math].
The statement is that the extremal elements of [math]\mathcal{E}[/math], the ones that don't admit a convex decomposition ([math]A= \lambda B+(1-\lambda ) C, 0 \le \lambda \le 1 \Rightarrow \lambda \in \left\lbrace 0,1 \right\rbrace[/math]), are projectors.

I belive that i need to start out from the spectral theorem: All [math]A\in\mathcal{E}[/math] can be written as [math]A= \sum \limits_i \lambda_i P_i[/math] where [math]P_i[/math] are orthogonal projectors and [math]0 \le \lambda_i \le 1[/math], the problem is that this is still not a proper convex composition, because the sum of [math]\lambda_i[/math] is not necessarily 1, and if i try to normalize A in a way that i get [math]\sum \limits_ i\lambda_i =1[/math], than it is impossible that the normalized A is an extremal element.

>the city of leltex

Veeky Forums's LelTeX has plenty of problems. For one, you need to put spaces in between some formulas. For example, if the formula involves {{ or }} you need to put spaces in between to make them { { or } } respectively eg. \sin{ \frac{x}{2} }. The TeX previewer won't catch stuff like this; it'll work in the previewer, but not on Veeky Forums.

For another, if you want { or } to appear in the formula proper, you need to use \lbrace or \rbrace respectively in order for them to show.

>belive
Eh, I missed one. But ah well.

At least that's one of the few benefits of using mobile; you can view the entire formula and check where it went wrong, without having to change any settings. PC then allows you to proofread the formula, again without having to change settings.

Thank you friend, i still don't understand what i did wrong though.

In your particular case, there were two issues with your code. I'll put them in separate posts to avoid fucking up the formulas.

1st issue: Instead of using \left{ \right}, you should have used \left\lbrace \right\rbrace.

[math]\left{ \right}[/math]
[eqn]\left\lbrace \right\rbrace[/eqn]

See the difference?

Second issue: certain formulas need to be separated by a space, from the rest of the formula. \mathbb{1} is one of them. So
[eqn]\mathcal{H} =\mathbb{C}^d[/eqn]
[math]\mathcal{H}=\mathbb{C}^d[/math]

>1st
>Second
Fug

How do they keep the liquid fuel in cryogenic rockets cool? Are they just big enough that you don't need any active cooling systems as long as you fuel them right before launch?

yes. And they also chill the plumbing before launch and insulate the tanks.

And other rockets use storable fuels at room temperature (Proton, Long March, old Titans)

How would I approach part d) of this question? Is there any reason to use the inverse of T in dii), for example?

(i) The nullity is the dimension of the kernel if i remember correctly, if that is Dim(V)-1 that means the dimension of the image of T, in other words the rank of T is 1.

(ii) No need for inverse. Whatever you put inside T gets mapped to the same one dimensional subspace, the answer follows from this.

(iii) You need to use that T(v) and T(w) are parallel and that T is linear.

Some quick additions:
(i) The nullity being Dim(V)-1 means that the things that don't get mapped to 0 are parallel with each other, and since T is linear, the dimension of the image also must be 1.

(ii) Since it's specified that w is part of the image and T(w)!=0, the image of T is not part if Ker(T), this means there is no problem with lambda being 0.

Thanks a lot

come on can I get a legit answer for this.

like was it liquid water at some point or what

Why is
[math]
\sum_{k=1}^\infinity \frac{1}{k}
[/math]
not convergent?

How should I explain in an exam the main differences between PCA and FA?

Can someone explain rotating in FA in an understandable form? Is rotating related to EFA or CFA?

Can be proved to be divergent using various convergence tests. Had to answer this question on it from when I was doing basic series in an earlier analysis course, maybe try the proof yourself?

what is the difference between [math]\cong[/math] and [math]\simeq[/math]? I'm in my first abstract algebra class right now and it seems like my professor uses them interchangeably.

like a question on an exam was, prove abelain group [math]G \simeq \mathbb{Z}_{p^{2}} [/math]. shouldn't it be [math]\cong[/math] since she wants us to show isomorphism?

In predicate logic, when saying something like:
[math]\exists x Px \wedge \exists Qx[/math]
Does the object x have to be the same object? I.e. does this say that some object exist in both P and Q, or is it simply saying that an object exists in P, and an object exists in Q, and they are not necessarily the same (but can be)?

Fucked up the latex, forgot the x on the second existential quantifier.
[math]\exists x Px \wedge \exists x Qx[/math]

Same shit.

Hydrogen and oxygen in relatively (300 K) hot molecular clouds formed water over long (hundreds of millions of years) and these lumped into bigger particles, together with other stuff during comet creation.

>I was learning Physics
learn form this
motionmountain.net/

get this book from libgen
Spectral Theory and Quantum Mechanics: With an Introduction to the Algebraic Formulation
Valter Moretti

it does not answer your question directly, but it is a nice book for aqft

no, the two x are not the same, because the ''and'' separate the quantifiers ''there is''

Someone please explain the difference between closed and compact supports. They both seem like the same thing to me.

I´ll take a look.
I managed to work out an answer today, still i wouldn´t dare to say it´s trivial when it took more than a page to prove. You can basically divide [math]\mathcal{ E }[/math] into convex subspaces of matrices that commute with eachother and construct linear bijections between the d-dimensional cube and each of these subspaces which map extremal points into extremal points.

This is the page.

>tfw accidentally posted this in another thread
How am I meant to solve for R?

Veeky Forums this is somewhat unrelated but how do I find out what period a particular transition metal belongs to?

How do I get a basic grasp of physics and chemistry (Up to 1st year college level) in a month and a half?
Math is easy as fuck, but physics and chemistry are a pain.

Feynman for physics

How do I into categorical logic and Grothendieck toposes?

Some people put separate GPAs on, one for total and one for major specific. I think that's kind of lame unless there's a huge disparity. If you're still >3.6 I wouldn't worry about it for sure.

RWH is kinda shit desu.
This. I have a pdf of it if anyone wants, but chris is pretty reasonable if you email him.

why doesn't this series converge

also is [math] 1-i>1[/math]

underrated

I can't tell you abt logic, but to into grothendieck topologies, best thing to do is to just start using them. Pick up a copy of Milne's étale cohomology. I hear a paperback version is coming out soon (like, any minute now), so maybe wait for that.

182.3 ohms

For this particular circuit you could just eyeball it and say "Oh, there's 12 volts across the resistor R, and it needs to be 0.1 A. 12 = 0.1 * R", but you won't always know that. So here's how to solve using KVL.

First simplify the circuit as much as possible. But for this one it's already simplified, since you can't really combine the 200 ohm and 2 ohm resistors because of the other voltage source. Then, I usually just start doing KVL and KCL for all of the loops/nodes until I have enough shit to solve for the variable(s). I cbf to do latex right now, so have a shitty pic of my mongoloid handwriting. Also circuit simulators are your friend. falstad.com/circuit/

How did you get that? That makes no sense.

I'VE GOT A FEW STUPID QUESTIONS

>1)
What's the difference between a stupid question thread and a QTDDTOTT (questions that don't deserve their own thread thread)

>2)
Why is computer science a meme if AI is completely valid? Are you nerds really trying to imply math is a better route to AI than CS?

>3)
What can a non academic do to prove any math credentials? How far can one go in self studying pure math, and would anything produced (likely very small) ever be respected?

Also, will community college grades be required when I fill out an application to a job? When they ask for GPA, will it include community college, or only be uni?

>1)
They're pretty much the same.
>2)
I don't know how you go from "AI is completely valid" to "CS is not a meme".
CS is just a specialization inside of math, just like any science. Machine learning, the most popular application of "AI" these days, is essentially just statistics, but it is considered CS since you'd be retarded not to implement it with a computer. This is, indeed, a stupid question.
>3)
Assuming it's for the purpose of getting a job, just make something that requires the knowledge you want to demonstrate. Depending on the employer, that will show them that you actually know the shit and can actually apply it. If they want a degree period then you're obviously fucked.
Do you seriously expect a definite answer to that? Depends on the employer. If you're applying to fucking McDonald's, they probably don't give a shit. For a law firm, yeah I'd think so. If they don't specify, you can just ask them.