Post the sexiest math symbols and equations

that things square.... square HAHAHA

>1/2*pi
Please don't do this, not everyone assigns * a strictly higher precedence than /
You wouldn't write 1-2+pi to mean 1-(2+pi) either

Post your H2 O jokes.

These two
>

1/2π on the inverse tranform and nothing on the other is for homosexual engineers

It definitely is the greatest symbol in mathematics but not because it represents some silly constant.

hey nice coincidence, got my electronic circuits/networks final in 2 days

>sexiest math symbols and equations

...

Ayy lmao what the fuck

[math]\int[/math]

I got so freaked out with the 1/2pi even though I'm using it this semester

I like this one because it always make me think of pic related.

Your face is unitary

>a box
Physicists have no souls

58008

probably depends on your definition of math symbol, but my vote goes to this bad girl

I'll always see this as a hand holding a crowbar.

cannot unsee

[math] \delta [/math]
fairly pleb.
I changed my initials to a linked [math] \delta S [/math] not so long ago.

>homosexual engineers
Nice pleonasm mate

...

C'mon, man. This is a blue board.

[math]\Gamma_{\alpha \beta \gamma} = g_{\alpha \delta} \Gamma^{\delta}_{\space \beta \gamma}[/math]

[eqn]\to[/eqn]

Combinatory logic is more elegant than lambda-calculus desu
Unfortunately the standard notation -- using ((gf)x) to denote composition instead of g(f(x)) -- severely obscures the (Curry-Howard) connection between combinatory logic and the rest of mathematics, which probably explains its current status of being 4everalone and isolated from the rest of mathematics.

Probably the second biggest mistake of functional theory, after the decision to use [math]g\circ f[/math] (i.e., gf) to denote the process of "first performing f and then performing g".
100 years later and I'm still mad

oh fuck, so that's why it is half-life logo
MIND = BLOWN

>trivial example of index gymnastics.

Not posting the sexiest equation.

the kerning on

[math]
\exp(-i \omega t)
[/math]

is awful.

8=>

>combinatory logic
>more elegant than lambda-calculus

>g o f is hard to understand

brainlet opinion discarded

[math]{\text{H}}_{et}^k\left( {{{\bar X}_p},{\mathbb{Q}_\ell }} \right) \otimes \mathbb{C} \cong {{\text{H}}^k}\left( {X,\mathbb{C}} \right)[/math]

Angular velocity looks like a thicc booty ω ω ω

[eqn]\oint \\ \prod \\ \nabla \\ \pi[/eqn]

cute

8=D ~~

Balls-cox-sprem operator.

Half-Life 3 Confermed

what are these scribbles

Do you know how I know you're an undergrad?

For a smooth variety over C, the usual cohomology is isomorphic to the l-adic cohomology (tensored C) of the variety taken mod p.

Because he uses \mid instead of \left| \right| ?

It's obviously the Sha

What the fuck is a "closed" triple integral? I suppose you need to integrate a volume embedded in R^4?

this

[math]2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_1[\math]

let's try that again

[math]2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_1[/math]

>index notation

[eqn] \frac{K}{M} = \frac{H}{L} \phantom{(loss)} [/eqn]

what is a good book on (co)homology?

I'm literally fine with every subject around it (schemes, basic abelian category theory, (non-algebraic) topology, etc.) but have never been able to /into/ (co)homology.

I can even kind of get basic stuff with chain complexes and all; it's the actual applications (such as the one given in your equation) and computation tricks that I'm missing almost totally.

yeah sorry this is a Bad Opinion.

elements should just be thought of as global sections and the connection to CCCs is automatic and your notational issue doesn't even come up.

I've always liked the drag equation myself.
[math]\frac{1}{2}\rho u^{2}C_{d}A [/math]

my nigger

I would say just open up Ch.3 of Hartshorne and work through every exercise.

Maybe read something on De Rham Cohomology first in order to get some topological intuition into place.

and stop the "let's not write out * in algebra" BS too. It was a bad idea.

I love the del tilde but I've never seen it used. As for Greek letters my favourite is the zeta. The dagger is also pretty sweet.

is this gauss/mean curvature and coefficients of the FFF?

Verlinde formula is the greatest thing to ever come out of knot theory

you know what I always found funny about mathematical physics?

neither mathematicians nor physicists care about it.

Prove it :^)

not just the notation! it's what that simple symbol is capable of!

I hope you aren't serious

>focusing on the symbols instead of the things they represent
Pseud confirmed.

[math]\partial_{\beta}F^{\alpha \beta} = 4\pi J^{\alpha} [/math]

[math]
\partial_{\alpha}F_{\beta \gamma} + \partial_{\beta}F_{\gamma \alpha} + \partial_{\gamma}F_{\alpha \beta} = 0[/math]

I wondered why the spacing looked so fucking atrocious.)

...

[math]dF = \ast J[/math]
[math]d\ast F = d^2 A = 0[/math]