Why is everything so fucking mediocre?

Why is everything so fucking mediocre?

I study the day before and I can get a mark of 8/10

When will this fucking talent stop I'm starting to get fucjking depressed of my ability, I want a fucking job but I can't get one, everything is so slow, why are the OTHER students so slow?

Please, tell me, what do you do If you are too fast for the rest?
I normally stop studying until it's almost too late.

I'm already on uni and this fucking brain is...I don't know, just tell me plsease

And it has worked since I was on HS.

Well you are either
>a. taking babby courses
>b. going to a shit university

>Study the day before and I can get a mark of 8/10
Please consider suicide user.

^

>Only an 8/10.
What a fucking loser.
Study more, user.

>only a 8/10
That's because often I have no time to study all the topics due to I start studying 6 hours before the exam.
>shit uni
That's probably true, how do I get rid of this fucking routine?

I'm failing some non-math nor physics nor chemistry courses because I don't feel like wasting 8 hours on something so trivial.

This is why parents need to beat their children.

Drop out and suck dick for coke then.

>That's probably true, how do I get rid of this fucking routine?
Study more advanced things by yourself or spend time getting laid or jerk off and watch anime why the fuck are you asking that kind of advice here

>study more advanced things
I'm eating a precalculus book before I start with Cal I and II, thanks for the advice.

I already watch cartoons, but only once a week, and I do the same jerking off, or no-fapping.

My mind says that it's wrong to fail at uni. It says that this action will bring me horror. But my fucking routine defeats my reasoning. When I notice, it's aready 4:00AM and I want to study.

>I'm eating a precalculus book before I start with Cal I and II, thanks for the advice.
LOL
So I was wrong, it wasn't either a or b, it was both.

Please tell me what do, instead of protecting your ego against someone with more potential than you.

>precalc

whoa there bud, think you can rub some of your talent and ability off on me?

>Something so trivial.
>Failing.
user, fuck off. Stop shitposting and go fucking study, dick head.

You're smart, figure it out for yourself.

not that guy but if you had more potential than him you wouldn't be taking a remedial course in university to get to a course that is a prerequisite to calc II, which I'd dare say most people on this board took during their first semester.

I'm not particularly smart but at least I didn't have to take remedial courses.

Well, I have to admit I skipped everything related to sucessions and we had been taught almost no content of limits, that's why I'm checking it tho.
Nigger I literally was doing more than 50 exercises of intergrals just when the teacher was explainin the first exercise. I know my potential. Also, this fucking brainlet professor can't answer me a ton of questions, like a formula non combinatorial of the triangle of pascal or the intuition of a function from a sucession of pointS. That's why I had to check what they didn't teach me.

>remedial courses
Do you need a teacher to understand a book?

listen cuckold, anyone can remember the 4 or 5 rules of differentiation and integration 20 minutes before an exam.

If you are so brilliant you can take a placement test, or simply ask a professor of a higher level course if you can take the final exam.

I've calmed down, bud. How can I change?

I've been trying to change, but this urge never ends.

I've almost finished the book. And I'm ready to do all things related to diferentiation. Then I'll check for more.
Also I'll check what are autovectors, because the professor can't explain shit, even though it's fucking easy to operate all of my math course.

>the professor can't explain shit
The professor can't explain shit most likely because you don't have the required knowledge to understand them. Basically apply a linear transformation to a vector, if the direction doesn't change then you have an eigenvector. But if you don't know what a linear transformation is then any explanation is worthless.
Don't blame your teachers when you are the ignorant one.

Just be able to explain every little thing you're able to do.

If I ask you to differentiate sin(x)^10, you better be able to tell me 100% accurately why chain rule works, why the derivative of sin(x)=cos(x), why the power rule works, and then be able to give me an epsilon-delta proof that your answer is in fact the correct answer at all points.

If you can do that, then a professor should be able to recognize that you might not be some fuck who thinks he's hot shit because he can readily remember formulae without necessarily understanding it, and then being good at plug and chug.

What's the name of that topic? And how do I start?

Also where do I get the list of requirements of my uni?
Professors put the content on the webpage when we have to study it, but I can't wait.
>epsilon-delta proof
>power rule
No idea what's that. I can do it with limits, does it count?

Couple weeks into calculus 1 now, doing well, already past the chain rule and beyond. Quotient rule was a joke. Product rule remains my specialty.

I ask my professor his thoughts on quantum mechanics and partial derivatives. He's impressed i know about the subject. We converse after class for some time, sharing mathematical insights; i can keep up. He tells me of great things ahead like series and laplacians. I tell him i already read about series on wikipedia. He is yet again impressed at my enthusiasm. What a joy it is to have your professor visibly brighten when he learns of your talents.

And now I sit here wondering what it must be like to be a brainlet, unable to engage your professor as an intellectual peer.

All of the deep conversations you people must miss out on because you aren't able to overcome the intellectual IQ barrier that stands in the way of your academic success... it's so sad.

My professor and I know each other on first name basis now, but i call him Dr. out of respect.

And yet here you brainlets sit, probably havent even made eye contact with yours out of fear that they will gauge your brainlet IQ levels.

A true shame, but just know it is because i was born special that i am special. I can't help being a genius, nor can my professor.

Two of a kind is two flocks in a bush.

Still I'm smarter than you and the pasta author.

>What's the name of that topic
Still calculus. Differentiating sin(x)^10 is calculus, and just because I ask you to explain your answer doesn't make it not calculus anymore.
Explaining things in rigorous detail and why this is necessary is typically called Analysis, however.

>power rule
Technically just jargon, don't worry about it.
It just a way to remember that
[math]\frac{d}{dx} x^n = nx^{(n-1)}[/math]
It's called many other things, but it doesn't need a name at all as it is just a shortcut method.

>epsilon-delta proof
>I can do it with limits, does it count?
Absolutely not. Limits are useful and will be used nearly everywhere in later math, but the concept of a limit is hand-wavey (for example, 'as x approaches 0'... how is it approaching 0? how close it is approaching 0? arbitrarily? if it's arbitrary can I just say x=1 is sufficiently close to 0? if I approach it a different way will my answer change? how do I approach it in the first place?). Many profs and textbooks will start you off by giving you the intuition of a limit but never defining it because the notation is spooky at a glance since it's literally greek. The epsilon-delta definition of a limit is what it actually means to be a limit. Proving differentiation results with limits is circular logic since differentiation itself is an operation defined by limits, so you need to fall back on a definition eventually and epsilon-delta defintion is just that.

>pow
So i have to make a lim_h->0{[(u+h)^n-u^n]/h} right?
That's the method i got taught to do a derivative manually. I suppose the original was that ep-d method.

>topic name
I meant the eigenvectors.
Is it inside the content of vectorial calculus?

Also how do you know a way to expresa the coeficients of a newton binomial power without that combinatorial formula nor drawing the pasc.triangle?
I got one but i also want to know if you can express the triangle's sucessions as functions.

>Please, tell me, what do you do If you are too fast for the rest?
>I normally stop studying until it's almost too late.
There's your reason. Too many people with talent (as you claim to have) are too lazy to take initiative to improve the world. You're "settling" for 8/10 if you study. The goal is not to pass, or pass well. It's to improve yourself. I'll warrant there are others in your classes that get 10/10. You think you *could* get that? Prove it to yourself. And then realize some consistently get 10/10. Not because they're as brilliant as you are, but because they work at it.

So yeah - things are mediocre because... you are.

>10/10
There is not.
There is some nerd-looking guy who is very comprehensive with me and study everyday. He still get 8.5/10 grades. I can't mock him tho.

>i'm mediocre
You wish

>So i have to ... right?
Yes.

>I suppose the original was that ep-d method
No.

>topic name containing eignvectors
Linear Algebra.

>how do you know a way to expresa the coeficients of a newton binomial power without that combinatorial formula nor drawing the pasc.triangle
You can find them recursively, although this is typically done by humans by drawing Pascal's triangle.
Since you don't want that, you use the definition of a Binomial Coefficient: (n C r) which is the combinatorics way you don't like.
I don't know why though, since (n C r) is defined as [math]\frac{n!}{(n-r)!r!}[/math] which is a perfectly reasonable formula:
[math]f(n,r)=\frac{n!}{(n-r)!r!}[/math] where n is the binomial power and r is the factor of the coefficient you desire. If the reason you don't like this is because of the factorials, then use the gamma function (which is an analytic continuation of (x-1)!), but this is extremely advanced, impractical, and is actually not helpful (especially in actual combinatorics where non-natural number powers may be used for generating formulas, a different method is used)

>n!(n−r)!r!
You guessed right. I hate factorials. I found out a sucession method to find those coeficients, but I had a doubt. Can you express the sucession of every column of the triangle of Pascal as a function? f(x) g(x) h(x)...?

Sure, but the function is recursive, so you wouldn't be able to calculate it without calculating every single row prior to the result you desire, in which case you might as well just have drawn a Pascal triangle.

There's no reason not to define the function via factorials using the domain and range of the nonnegative integers, since you wouldn't actually expand a binomial to a power if the power was not a nonnegative integer.

Also you can define it by replacing every factorial with an instance of the gamma function, but if you hate factorials then you will hate the gamma function.

I know it seems to be recursive, but my irrational obsession of it makes me imply that:
f(x)=1
g(x)=x
dg(x)/dx=dx/dx->d g(x)/dx=f(x)
And I feel that the actual positions N:(1,2,3,4,5...) can be replace in every function, and I understand derivatives with two POVs, one is a simple quotient, and the other is the variation of a function, so if every column represents the variation of one point to another (1->2) relating two consecutive columns, then maybe they can be represented as integrals between them, can you correct me please?

It seems recursive because it IS recursive.

You can't use derivatives and integrals here because derivatives and integrals require continuous functions. Clearly the variation of binomial coefficients is not continuous.

I demanded proof of the inexistence of a funcion that coincides the same points of those sucessions.

Well, maybe it's impossible.

Are we going in circles? The binomial coefficient formula can be treated as multivariable function that describes exactly what you want. If you want a continuous function with a derivative and the whole deal, then there is no god damn point since if have finite points so you can generate an infinite number of functions by using Lagrange polynomials. If you used an infinite number of points then the function is not well defined since you have to have infinite points mapping to 1, yet finite points mapping to any other value (for example, only 2 values can ever map to 3). This can only be done piecewise (such as a rearrangement or a piecewise function), so then f(x) does not exist as one single function.