Veeky Forums Ylyl Thread

This

...

...

Can somebody explain this to me, or point me to a relevant wiki link

...

That's funny, but it is taken from a writing mocking econometrics.

Original uibk.ac.at/econometrics/lit/siegfried_jpe_70.pdf

this one always makes me chuckle

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

>fap thread
>base 12

source

...

I love this one because it has two levels of humor:
On the surface it's the old joke that 1+2+...=-1/12, but at the deeper level it pokes fun at mathematicians' attempts to justify the utility of their subject.

fucking kek

all of these are hardly funny
:/

...

You laugh you lose, not you cringe you lose.

Unfortunately I was in that thread and I was the first to tell OP how fucking cringey his shit was.

you probably just dont understand them

>all of these are hardly funny
fuck off i kek hard at most of these.

Hey, that was me!

That class was fucking amazing. Natural arithmetic (first topic) and Complex arithmetic (last topic) were the two best parts about it. Funny enough, it is actually way harder to prove that x+12 = 15 if x=13 in the natural numbers than in the complex numbers because for the complex numbers addition is defined through a function that you can simply evaluate, but in the natural numbers addition is defined recursively and follows only two very weak axioms and you can only prove anything with those two axioms by flexing your logic muscles until they break.

A guy really won the Fields Medal for computing some homology groups. I was reading about it in "modern math in light of the fields medals." I'll look it up when I get home to the book.

...

...

fuck me

...

...

the fucking pic though kek

...

...

...

...

...

...

I think it just makes fun of mathematicians in general.

The whole -1/12 requires a lot of stretch logic to reach, and series in general are actually really dumb.

Kek

> dude infinity lmao
Dying

>"Without five I couldn't even count to six."
>mfw
what am I doing with my life

Found it. I'm pretty sure the post is making fun of this stuff.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homotopy_groups_of_spheres

Secifically the work of Hurwicz.

It's winter break. Kick back and enjoy the fact that the fall semester is done :)

...

Is this legit?

This is the very reason I don't share singular open problems that I'm stuck on. Like it's a property of a specific constant or function, you can't share that shit on Veeky Forums.

True story: I once met a nukephys undergrad who believed that a generic exponential curve would "level off eventually". Thats probably the single most disastrous misconception somebody working with nuclear material could have.

Yup, Borwein Integrals.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borwein_integral

...

...

...

...

Oh yeah, been following this madman on the better chan for a while.

I fucking love him.

what chan might that be

EIGHTch.net/agdg/res/26682.html

Well, they were an undergrad. What did you expect?

Lol I know this guy from IRC.

This is great.

But he's right.

well he's not wrong, if you let the reaction go critical it will level off EVENTUALLY
much good it will do you

nice

stole this sentence from a friend's facebook page and posted it on Veeky Forums for giggles.

...

can someobody explain that one pls?

They were written in the 1950's by a soviet scientist and his assistant to summarise most of the physics knowledge.
Only a soviet would say it's all you need in physics because although the books are really good and it can be a national pride, the very concise style and the inherent harshness make it a bad stand-alone choice.

some trivia: landau died in 1968, before they wrote the second last book, so lifschitz had to write the last two books with another theoretical physicist. pretty sad. rip landau

^this

...

You do realise minutes are a measure of distance as well, as long as you're talking about light? 8 minutes per hour is ~5*10^7 m/s.

8 MINUTES per HOUR does NOT give a value of METRES per SECOND. sorry to tell you this.

Sorry, it does.

c is a conversion factor for seconds into meters, and it's used as such in cosmology all the time (ever hear of lightyears/years?). Converting the minutes into meters and the hours into seconds will give you a value of meters per second, retard.

This is basic special relativity. Check out the opening pages of Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler if you have trouble understanding this.

I'm not that guy, but a lightyear is a measure of distance and a year is a measure in time. The most you can ever get is 1 lightyear/year because [math]c[/math] is the speed limit of the universe.

As an engineer I want to say : "fuck you, that's close enough"

First off, lightyears are a measure of length.

Second, space and time are one substance. The units of the spacetime interval are both length and time, related by the conversion factor c.

Year and lightyear are used almost interchangeably in cosmology (when one is talking about light, a condition I specified above), because one talks about spacetime intervals and not "simple" length at scales where relativity needs to be considered (e.g. 5*10^7 m/s).

My point is clear to anyone who knows anything about special relativity.

Sorry, but is CORRECT. You use c to convert seconds into metres in relativity, so that a metric remains dimensionally consistent, and spacetime diagrams make sense as the "absolute" distance. If something veers towards the time axis, it is called timelike and if it veers towards any of the spatial axes, is is called spacelike. In astronomical distances/speeds, it is very convenient to use the so-called "natural units" whereby you express time and mass as distances. It's just a convention that makes a lot of sense, no one is saying seconds physically ARE metres.

Thanks bro

What's the formula, then? I would google it, but asking is more conversational.

1 second = ~3 * 10^8 m, obviously...

No problem, always good to spread information

Multiply whatever time you have by c. It's that simple.

Ok so let's see if I understand this. Since [math]c[/math] is measured in [math]\left[\frac{m}{s}\right],[/math] we then just say that this is equal to [math]c \times \left[\frac{m}{s}\right] \Leftrightarrow [s] = c \times [m].[/math] Similarily, if we have a thing, let's call it [math]a[/math], that measures something in [math]\left[\frac{f_1(u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5,u_6,u_7)}{f_2(u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5,u_6,u_7)}\right],[/math] where [math]u_i[/math] is a standard measurement unit for [math]1 \le i \le 7,[/math] and [math]f_1[/math] and [math]f_2[/math] are functions of (potentially) seven variables, then you have that [math][f_2(u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5,u_6,u_7)] = a \times [f_1(u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5,u_6,u_7)]?[/math] I'm just trying to generalise here. Sorry if I'm kind of stupid.

You completely over complicated that. In relativity the objects you use are metrics which are tensors, and not simple functions. So you would selectively multiply the time component of said metric by c and it would be dimensionally equivalent to the spatial components.
It's not a prefactor of a general function (tensors) but rather of the time component. In General Relativity, this is also done for the mass and energy terms in a tensor.

badass mofucka

Not so better if you're here

Veeky Forums in a nutshell

Not even gonna lie, this is basically how I felt when I was doing babby tier proofs in my foundations class. It was really cool seeing the basis for a bunch of ideas that I had taken for granted for so long.
Fucking wow