ITT: extremely painful equations

guarantee you cant simplify it big guy

>posts picture of a person with a penis
>"that's not a woman"
>"nobody cares u frickin bigot"
shitpost better

Just expand the factors of each term. Are you in middle school?

says a lot about you that this thread made you think about tranny dick doesnt it...

I think its 4u

...

I got 4u in about 30 seconds. I don't know why you think its difficult.

How do we know that the computer is correct if we cant solve it analytically?

i don't see how. apparently you're still struggling with high school math.

It's so easy I can see the solution without even thinking about it. There's mutual agreement around here OP is retarded, probably posting his grade 8 homework.

This is more like it.

As long as the symbolic computation methods are sound, you know it's right because it's math.

Compare to this pic.

its a meme u fuckin dip

solved it mate post something harder

>hurrr ITS MATHHH DUDE XDXDXD

That... does not really answer the question.

The computer is giving a solution. How do we know this solution is correct?

It was said to be painful

Man, just think about it. If you're solving it on a computer, you are using an algorithm that performs symbolic computation. These algorithms are based in mathematics like number theory and abstract algebra. Because you know these algorithms work, you know you have the solution.

[math]He's[/math] [math]wondering[/math] [math]why[/math] [math]someone[/math] [math]would[/math] [math]shoot[/math] [math]a[/math] [math]man,[/math] [math]before[/math] [math]throwing[/math] [math]him[/math] [math]out[/math] [math]of[/math] [math]a[/math] [math]plane.[/math]

You and I both know that this is a brainlet type of reasoning.

Stop wasting my time.

>post something harder

Since you asked
>Inter-universal Teichmüller Theory

I know this is a meme too

>I don't understand Symbolic Computation
Whatever man. Take a computer algebra course (one that has abstract algebra as a prerequisite (i fucking hope there're no courses that don't)) and then maybe you'll see. It's the same reason you can trust calculators to add things properly.

@8974043

Stop replying to me and, most importantly, stop making a fool out of yourself.

This is embarrassing.

he's right you moron

Was being a retard part of your plan?

You out-memed Veeky Forums
Well done

Would have been better if you made it bigger
Still laughed

Those are not equations.

look at this hothead over here

Lel reminds me of Watson's integrals.

mathworld.wolfram.com/WatsonsTripleIntegrals.html

Even Wolfram can't be assed to explain the final one
>to obtain an entirely closed form, it is necessary to do perform some analytic wizardry

Convergence proofs + numerical error analysis.

isn't this from Griffiths QM chapter 4? vaguely remember this last year

you're a big guy

Show your work

I got 5u.

Hahaha. This is the best comeback

What's the shortcut?

10 seconds to factor, 5 seconds to cancel like terms, 3 seconds to reduce the constants, 1 second to realize answer

that user didn't take a short cut he took a long cut desu

>tfw to inteligent to get the joke

>1939
impressive

>factor quadratic
>cancel 2x-5 and 2x+5 terms
literally all there is to it

guys im having some trouble

4u!

Could you go over your steps? I solved it slightly differently.

4x^2u-25u=(2x+5)(2x-5)u, both x terms cancel leaving you with (u/2)/(1/8)

>Veeky Forums can't into difference of squares

>tfw it takes you 20 minutes to factor 4x-10

the easiest stuff is sometimes the hardest

Are you shitting me? This is basic algebra.
Every single person here should be able to immediately see how the two combine and at lest a couple steps of factorization.

You're a fucking retard.

Jesus Christ I'd give you and F just for how shitty you wrote that.

What in the fuck can this possibly be? Looks like some high dimensional sphere?

I like a bit of humor in a proof. If you can pull off humor in a proof then you're doing it right.

But that's just thumbing of nose. Come on now. Get rid of those phis and rs and let's get some n dimensional space.

Category theory is so sexy...

Deliver some interesting exercises form calculus. I know, you have some.

>But that's just thumbing of nose. Come on now. Get rid of those phis and rs and let's get some n dimensional space.
You're completely clueless about what it's even about, keep your dumb ass opinions to yourself. In fact, just stop posting all together.
Honestly one of the cringier posts I've read on here, and that's saying a lot.

[math]x-\frac{1}{2}x^2 \leq \ln\left(1+x\right)\leq x, \quad \forall x \geq 0 [/math]

>How do we know that the computer is correct if we cant solve it analytically?
Why do you assume we can not? It would probably be extremely tedious, but still possible

Trivial.

it's a Helium atom I think

...

nice

source on that pdf?

Wouldn't know.

>fine, I'll be that guy

Just cancel everything and you get that cursive e.

How do we know that if a human solved it it would be correct?

fucking idiot

>When you're trying to sound smart to your anonymous internet friends but end up exposing yourself as a brainlet.

Jesus I though sci was supposed to be the smart board, not filled with adolescent cringe Lords.

>not using the tensor representation of navier stokes

>not cross canceling

>hands over an apple
>hey could you untie this knot for me, it's really difficult
Until you reformat it into an equation you're literally just not making sense.

...

It is obviously true for |x|=1 ?

nvm, log(1+x)-x is strictly decreasing for x>0, stricly increasing for -1