/mg/ - Math general

I believe it's an integral. Try asking here

I tried asking them but they just said I have ass burgers

don't you have math friends?

Nah, try asking in

no one else is here to help you with your homework so why not engage in a conversation?

I don't know, try asking in

i'm sorry you're having such a hard time with math. are you new to Veeky Forums?

I'm not really sure how to answer that, try asking in

Chapter on cofiber bundles, section 2.

i don't have that book.

>mathematics
Please move to the math thread. This one has been defiled by dog-eaters.

have a (You)

I don't really know how to respond, you might be better off posting these types of posts in

Try different one then. I can't explain it concisely enough here, not to mention i'm not entirely confident in my understanding of it. I've already done my homework, i just want to see if there's a simple way to prove it.

>i just want to see if there's a simple way to prove it.
Just claim that it is intuitively clear. We do that all the time in physics :D

just because you can't answer my question doesn't make me right

No you don't. I'm on a project with theoretical physicists and apart from wonky notation, they're quite rigorous. If you can't prove my excercise, please refrain from distracting everyone else that might.

>I'm on a project with theoretical physicists
Same here :D
We mainly use our physical intuitions though. Ain't got time for that "rigor" bs

Yeah you use your intuition to know fields representing fermions anticommute, but you still prove it when you have to.

>but you still prove it
Nope. I use physical intuitions and experiments. I literally do not believe in math.

>can't into physics
>is jealous of physics fags for being able to appreciate various fields of knowledge
sad!

>can't into physics
I'm a pretty good physicist though. I have an extremely developed physical intuition. There is no need for proofs.
>being able to appreciate various fields of knowledge
Nah, fuck math.

>mathfag attempt at parody
just stop

How can I be a "mathfag" when I don't even use math?

good point you're a pop sci fanboy now get

I'm a theoretical physicist, not a pop-sci fanboy. I just despise math and I don't use it.

prove you're a theoretical physicist

I don't believe in proofs.

neither do most people you have only proven you aren't a mathematician

I couldn't care less about "most people". They're mostly fucking retarded anyway.

all you've proven is you're one of the people who doesn't care about proofs, which puts you outside of the set of mathematicians, nothing more.

I see. I didn't notice that you didn't notice.
You asked me to "prove I'm a physicist". I can't "prove" this since I don't believe in "proofs".

I can't "prove" I'm a physicist since I don't believe in "proofs". You're pretty retarded, even for a mathfag.

well then i can't take your word on anything you say that's physics related. sorry senpai. you're basically an engineer.

You can prove it to others because others believe in proofs. Anyway, theoretical physicist with aversion towards math is doomed to failure.

My words make sense to my physical intuitions. That's all that really matters in this world. You can go fucking kill yourself.
I don't engage in the activity of "proofs".
>theoretical physicist with aversion towards math
A lot of us actually despise math. Not everyone is so vocal about it though. And I'm pretty successful as far as I'm concerned.

You're OP you friggin dumdum.

That pic uses math. I don't use math.
Aren't mathfags supposed to be "good" at "logic"?

You're OP and I suggest you leave your thread.

That pic uses math and I have stated on multiple occasions that I don't use math.
Aren't mathfags supposed to be "good" at "logic"?

i have found a formula, how do I prove it?

Since when is using a pic that uses math the same thing as using math?

You don't. You experimentally test it and check if it conforms to your physical intuitions.

Does anyone here know any decent math books that cover all the topics present in the art of problem solving books: volume 1 and 2?

I already have the first book but can't seem to find the second one anywhere so I think I will have to give up on this series.

Here's the list of contents of the 2 two books:
>Vol .1
s3.amazonaws.com/aops-cdn.artofproblemsolving.com/products/aops-vol1/toc.pdf

>Vol. 2
s3.amazonaws.com/aops-cdn.artofproblemsolving.com/products/aops-vol2/toc.pdf

If something like this is impossible then what are the best books for teaching yourself mathematics from the basics till prealgebra and precalculus.

Thank you.

Please use the mathematics thread.
This thread has been defiled by dog-eating physishits

Trig is definable by pure geometry.

There is no topology there.

I have stated that I despise math. I wouldn't want to further its existence by using math pictures.

Physicists use math :D

It's just some random garbage someone thought up. It has no real physical meaning.
I'm a theoretical physicist and I don't use math. Physical intuitions and experiments which confirm these intuitions are enough.

...

>i want physicists to seem obnoxious so i can be left alone in my safe space
>ends up being the only person anyone in the thread is annoyed with

This. Math is just pure made up garbage with no real physical meaning or interpretation.
You don't even really need it in physics if you're any good.

I don't care much about other physicists. They are free to use math if they feel like it. I'll just fucking laugh at them for doing so.

Took me forever to solve it but the answer was so simple: 60

Cool. Nobody gives a fuck though. Math is just a waste of time.

op can you make another thread? there are too many physishits in here. thanks.

This is a physics thread now. You mathfags can fuck right off.

Fuck this made up garbage.

ok well i want more physicist to come to this thread so can you make one for physicists so that they know to use that thread?

You could make one yourself if you care so much. I just want to discuss physics here, not math.

it's just you who wants to discuss physics though and people are getting confused cuz it's in a math thread

Nope, this isn't a math thread anymore. I have experimentally verified math to be invalid.

HOw? I don't understand experiments at all but I don't think that's how they work.

I just Showed that math is fucking garbage by showing that it produces answers which are simply not valid and not possible in our world.

answers to what kinds of questions?

To sensible questions. In others words things which are not made up garbage (like math).

>Up on that new shit

>math
Fucking garbage.

That's actually h(m^{-1})
Basically, just follow the arrows from L_n bar to K_{n-1}.
It's all algebraic topology is about anyway

Man you litteraly just have to write down what an exact sequence is, and just check that it indeeds work everytime, bc your diagram is full of exact sequences.
You just have to follow the arrows...

Any ideas how to prove this? Or some good textbook on number theory, i suck at it.

pretty non-trivial theorem if i remember it right, probably not easy to come up with your own proof

Well there's a pretty big hint leading to ramification theory, since that's the section in which it is. But i still can't figure it out after two days. It's supposed to be freshman book, i'm about to start uni so i should be able to solve it, but i can't think of anything. A tiny nudge in the right direction is all i ask.

jstor.org/stable/2319208?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

> An Elementary Proof of the Kronecker-Weber Theorem

Brainlet here

Through a glitch in my university's class registration system I'm somehow able to register for calc 1 without having taken any trig/precalc. My highest math course is college algebra. FWIW I got an A in that class.

Should I go through it? The prerequisites aren't part of any degree requirement.

You should have learned that stuff in high school. If you did, register for the course. If you don't know it, you won't be able to do calc without mastery over that stuff.

If you're a burger, your calc 1 is highschool stuff so you'll be alright. If you're yuropoor read Kolmogorov and you'll be able to pass it.

brainlet here
how'd you do it?

Let us say that I have a sequence of numbers.
I have found a formula for n-th term in this sequence
How do I prove that this formula is true?

induction

Just finished Algebra 1, you can't call me a brainlet anymore, Veeky Forums.

Hahaha
Good job
Can't be 60 tho
Loser

That is definitely not what I got.

Actual brainlet here. How did you do it user?

What's wrong with physics?

pretty sure the diagram isn't consistent

Nothing.
OP is just an immature weeb.

They make OP feel insecure because they are marginally less autistic and bully her relentlessly for it.

I assumed line AB and DE are parallel. The diagram is visually very inaccurate.