ITT: Books that made something "click"

Mathematics is the most autistic of all possible pursuits, just don't even attempt it you aren't obviously gifted and socially retarded

primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/one.html

If 1 were a prime number, than every number would have infinitely many unique prime factorizations. eg 10 = 2*5 = 2*5*1 = 2*5*1*1 = ... This would be a nuisance.

So we take the definition of prime to be a number greater than 1 that is only divisible by 1 and itself.

On one of my first days in his class, a classical mechanics professor proved that 1 = 2 "if we assume small values of 2" to demonstrate some limitations of problem-solving in physics. I wish I remembered how he did the whole thing because he made it such a roundabout method that it seemed reasonable most of the time.

>primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/one.html

Mathematicians are truly the heros of modern web design. Note that this page was updated in 2016!

Seems kinda lame to disqualify it just because it's inconvenient but I'm a layman with dyscalculia so what do I know

>Seems kinda lame to disqualify it just because it's inconvenient but I'm a layman with dyscalculia so what do I know

Now you know that 1 is not a prime!

I do but I'm not happy about it

It's instructive to think about what we want primes to do when you think of what a suitable definition for them to be is. We would like primes to serve as the 'building blocks' or 'irreducible components' of the integers. Like 40 = 4*10 = 2*2*2*5. This is a unique way of writing 40, and that comes in handy. No matter which integer you start with, you can break it down until all you have are primes. Buuuuuut only if 1 is not a prime. So if you exclude 1, you get these awesome building blocks for all the other numbers. Hence our choice of definition.

Alright, I do understand that. I had never even considered the function prime numbers have in math, I've always just thought of them as interesting anomalies people study for the sake of studying

> interesting anomalies people study for the sake of studying

You're not wrong

The holy Bible of Kek.

It has truly changed my life. Don't believe me? Well then check these sweet digits.

Veeky Forums here,

o im laffin

>I've always just thought of them as interesting anomalies people study for the sake of studying

That's a common perception, and not wrong for some mathematicians. I.e. "I don't care what primes do, but I care about what properties they have."

It gets into philosophy, but it makes you wonder why can we decompose some numbers and not others? Is it some property of the number system itself, or inherent to each number, or something else entirely?

Ok hotshot, tell me how to divvy up all my 2n pieces of candy then.

Same layman here. What's bizarre about it to me it that prime numbers are the same in any base system. That means that prime numbers aren't a product of the way humans do math, they're inherent in math itself. There's something kind of spooky about it, given that most anomalies can be explained by examining the properties of the base being used.

0.99999 =/= 1

SICP explains functional programming and abstraction in CS very well

>That means that prime numbers aren't a product of the way humans do math, they're inherent in math itself.

I'd like to see this claim justified with philosophical rigor. Perhaps it is simply a property of integer number systems (regardless of base) that gives rise to the existence of primes.

Since we're already going there, do you think the number 2 exists somewhere and was discovered or accessed, or was invented?

>prime numbers aren't a product of the way humans do math
>they're inherent in math itself.

there's no "inherent math" until we meet some aliens and compare notes, the math we find interesting or relevant is predicated on our cognitive and societal requirements, the arithmetic and algebraic foundations of subjects like prime numbers have their origins in people doing harvest and resource calculations

if the human brain had evolved to handle such arithmetic computations unconsciously but our vision was bad and we were really bad at telling patterns, math would have focused way less on number theory and way more on statistical stuff; but our brain is hard-wired for practical bayesian inference and classification but fairly poor at arithmetic without education

ITT: Veeky Forums tries to math and reveals why they ran to the humanities with their tails tucked between their legs

What's your career

>our brain is hard-wired for practical bayesian inference and classification

can you explain what you mean by this? my understanding is that you're saying today's understanding of statistics is underdeveloped relative to today's understanding of number theory because statistical estimation is, as you say, "hard-wired" into cognition. my question is where you're getting that latter piece from? as a marxist I'm always interested in transhistorical findings of the sciences, because they challenge certain aspects of my methods. that said i'd also be interested in anything you have to say about practical bayesian interest beyond my (like that other user, layman's) inference here.

...

Or maybe I'm a stemfag that uses literature to compensate for feeling culturally inferior because all of my classmates are reddit-obsessed positivist fedora lords
Fight me

The state of modern web design is objectively shit. The worst part about that site is the font of "Prime FAQ".

wrong

Prove it

Here's a classic Veeky Forums meme for you. This is the real webpage of a real mathematician. A kinda famous one even.

For a real fun time, open one of his papers.

kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/top-english.html

>my understanding is that you're saying today's understanding of statistics is underdeveloped relative to today's understanding of number theory

I make no such claim, my claim is that arithmetic, algebra, and geometry's relevance in agricultural planning, combined with no previous hard-wiring for those subjects in the human mind, are why they were among the first developed fields of math in humans

>as you say, "hard-wired" into cognition. my question is where you're getting that latter piece

bayesian inference and statistical pattern analysis is an inherent part of how human cognition works: if you see deer by the river at a certain time of day every day; your best bet for seeing them again is at that river at a certain time of day, and that deer or any animal similar to a deer will probably gather at other rivers too, the association of the image of a deer and the concept of "deer" comes from statistical processing on your visual stimuli produced by the appearance of a deer, the sounds it makes, other context as stated before etc

come over to Veeky Forums and we'll fuck yu up bookworm

Literally me

manuel puig clicks like a fucking geiger counter for me. Don DeLillo almost every line

No, he's correct. 0.99999 = 99999/100000 < 1

>kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/top-english.html

When he refers to himself as an "Inter-Universal Geometer" does he mean Universal in some very specific math sense?

It's honestly hard to tell how some of these people play out. Like I can't tell if he is so enraptured by the lobes of that billowing manifold he has as the background that it appears in good taste to him and as connoting something entirely different than it does. Same thing with being an inter-universal geometer;

Maybe if heard me now he would just blink as if struggling to comprehend my ignorance before quickly returning to the splendor of a world I will never know. Or maybe he is just a hard quantitative autist whose sensory apparatus is so blunted to nuance that piling on to excess is the only way qualities even register to him in a meaningful way.

You just walked into the wrong fucking neighborhood, STEMfag.

ding ding ding, me too.

fug i got trolled
DD':

the bible desu

Is the answer quite simple and general or does it involve having to give different solutions based on what 2n is, for example if 2n is a multiple of 3 do this, if it's a multiple of 5 do this?

Philosophy is retarded. STEM > humanities

Step 4 is wrong.

It's (a+b)(a-b)=a2-2ab+b2

He made up the name "inter universal geometry" for a theory that he made up in isolation that is so abstract and far out that only a few people alive even claim to understand it and they are all his students of 5-10 years.

He claims to have made progress on some famous difficult problems with big implications, but nobody can understand his proof well enough to know if it's correct because of his work. I mean maybe it's all greek to you but phds in math look at his paper and can't parse one sentence.

It's assumed by many that he's either a genius or a charlatan.

>Is the answer quite simple and general or does it involve having to give different solutions based on what 2n is, for example if 2n is a multiple of 3 do this, if it's a multiple of 5 do this?

I do not know because that problem has remained unsolved for several centuries.

That's not what my girlfriend says.

Goldbach's Conjecture.

Honestly, discrete math is filled with shit like that: seemingly simple statements that are much harder to prove than you'd think and require much more eclectic techniques. Just goes to show that our way of thinking about numbers (discrete things -- 1, 2, 3,... -- as opposed to a more continuous viewpoint) is less "natural" than you'd expect.

kek

Either/Or, The Ego and Its Own, A short history of decay.

Why is this fucking threat still going?

oh thank god another high iq poster is here. i started to think i was surrounded by only retards

because faggots like you keep bumping it and there are no mods

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

a = b
a^2=ab
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a^2-2ab+b^2-b(a-b)=0
a^2-3ab=0
a^2=3ab
a=3b

easy.

It's dangerous

(a-b)(a+b)=a^2-b^2
(a-b)^2=a^2-2ab+b^2
lrn2mathz

i dont know why but this pic is shit

my bro is a math teacher and he knows why this is wrong. theres something false in the equation. i dont know myself, im more chem than math. but he says theres a false step there.

read the thread, it's because at one step he divides by a-b
but since a-b=0 it's impossible, so you're creating a "false" solution

Division by zero on line 4.

does this therefore work as part of a proof of why dividing by zero is no good?

I can't do basic algebra. I am one semester away from graduating uni and I have failed 120 twice.

One more failure and I won't be able to get my degree.

i suppose, but I'm not sure if not being able to divide by 0 is a mathematical law or just a convention, similarly to x^0=1
this is probably more of an example why it can't work, more than proof

FOIL

...

Serious question, why did DFW make so many autistic and cringe-worthy references to calculus in his books?

There was that retarded tennis match or dodgeball match that involved literal baby calculus that you learned in 8th grade.

I'm new to Veeky Forums can someone explain who all of these people are?
Thanks in advanced to anyone kind enough.

left to right:
Max Stirner: 19th century German philosopher related to nihilism, anarchism
Some guy
Thomas Pynchon: 20th century American writer known for postmodern epics
Fyodor Dostoevsky I think: 19th century Russian writer known for masterpieces of psychological fiction
David Foster Wallace: contemporary American author known for Infinite Jest, which has yet to really be categorized.
Some woman
James Joyce: Early 20th century Irish writer, most prominent figure of Modernism in literature
William Shakespeare: Most famous English writer of all time, known for his tragedies, comedies, and sonnets
Ernest Hemingway: early 20th century American novelist, known for being sparse or something

I know the woman on the right is O'Connor because she's my waifu

no idea who the unidentified guy is, looks kinda like my grandfather

cormac mccarthy

do you think these nine could take the top 9 from Veeky Forums in a fight?

like a fist fight? Hemingway is like THE man's man so he could definitely handle himself, shakespeare who knows, probably average? Joyce is fighting irish, the woman could be a good asset as a distraction for those virgin nerds on Veeky Forums, DFW literally killed himself so he wouldnt be afraid of jack shit, blood drunk Im sure. dosto has been exiled so hes probably tough as nails, pynchon not much info available on him. stirner might convince one or two of them that the fight isnt worth having and then sucker punch them and mccarthy is a net loss I think, unless he has old man strength.

Veeky Forums's advantage is that most artistic geniuses are broken men who fight themselves all day every day, so turning that focused rage unto someone else is probably incendiary as fuck.

I cant assume anything about Veeky Forums but Id like to think theyre all autists who have never even gotten into an argument before because they dont socialize.

Veeky Forums is even slower than Veeky Forums, we would fuck them up

McCarthy's probably a real menace with a revolver

I mean he writes some pretty fucked up stuff

I wouldnt know I havent read any of his work, but if hes twisted he probably isnt below eye gouging or biting in which case, the crazed senile intimidation factor would be a game changer.

someone make a thread on sci and lay down a challenge

lmao someone actually do this please

>>Veeky Forums8556038

Fuck

toppest of keks

What are you doing, go fight for us

Send in the ambassador

>the math guy is a super serious autist who lives in the World of Math!
Jeez dude. Re-read your post. Lighten up and calm down. You're sounding retarded and I know you can do better

(a-b)(a+b)=a*a+a*b-b*a-b*b=a^2-b^2

?