What are some powerful equations

what are some powerful equations

Other urls found in this thread:

ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Stokes theorem
twitter.com/AnonBabble

0 = 2

...

your mom + me = you

come home son

...

0.99999... = 1

[math]
1+2+3+... = - \frac{1}{12}
[/math]

π = 3

P = UI

thanks, engineer

1+0 = 0.5

meme'd

What slow down there slugger we know we just aren't as smart as you, leave some intellect for the rest of us

edgy as shit

Any constant looks important if you extend it into multiple pages

the equation that gets every brainlet into a twist

dude -1/12 lmao

said it best

extra meme'd

[math]\int_\Omega d\omega=\int_{\partial\Omega}\omega[/math]

[eqn] \delta \mathcal { S } = 0 [/eqn]
It's sooooo elegant you guys.

Not an equation, but powerful nonetheless:
If [math]\phi: G \longrightarrow H [/math] is a group homomorphism, then
[math] H \cong G / \text{ker}\phi [/math]

"The First Group Isomorphism Theorem"

dumbass

surjective

>generalized stokes theorem
>powerful

You're a small fry.

Such shitty rendering on the font compared to the picture. Makes it look like a poor attempt at making this seem overly illustrious

>not the isomorphism theorems for universal algebras
wanna know how i know you're a brainlet?

1 + 2 + 3 + 4... = -1/12

e^pi + i = -1 + 0

look at this ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Stokes theorem
>the standard model of particle physics is just a special case of stokes theorem

That's... highly misleading

Let me be more specific. Differential forms and related subjects (along with a whole lot of Lie theory and ) allows us to write down possible components of the Action in a manifestly covariant (and gauge invariant) way, and to relate the quantities to one another. Simple application of Stoke's theorem allows a theory with a small subset of these possible terms to be solved exactly in the classical regime. These are useful for studying vacuum field configurations - among other things.

The standard model is all of those possible terms in 4-dimensional spacetime that keeps the theory *renormalizable* which cannot be understood through these means. Stokes theorem has nothing to say about why terms like

[math]c_6\int d^4x \text{Tr}(F \wedge F)\phi^2(x)[/math]

shouldn't be included in a low energy effective action of the standard model.

You've been cucked, physishit. He cucked you by fucking your slutty equation in the pussy and then in the ass.

Not an equation, but inverse function theorem is goat.

...

>autistic garbling

THANK YOU!

[math]G_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}[/math]

always liked it

I've got it tattooed on my leg kek

[math]\lim_{J\to\infty} \frac{J}{s}[/math] is pretty powerful

Why would you do that to yourself?

...

pics plus timestamp

Being pedantic is a brainlet mechanism.

P = NP

...

hey there ape

kek

...

>Using SI
Wew lad.
Heisenberg equation > Schrödinger equation

calm down satan

i wasn't feeling well setting c=1 man...i could also just write [math]G_{\mu \nu}=\kappa T_{\mu \nu}[/math]

>not natural units

again read above

It's not pedantism, you just chose the thing that you get taught in high school. It's like answering this with, say, fundamental theorem of calculus, when Stoke's theorem exists.

people = shit

nigger detected

thats just his slave branding, carry on fellow citizen

kek im white

People who write exp{...} should kill themselves.

>doesn't say what W is

It is beneficial to use exp(x) instead of e^x when the argument is really long. When you do e^(something) latex tends to write that something in smaller text, making it harder to read.

In calculus the worse you will deal with is shit like e^(3x^2) so you are good but in real math like number theory the arguments of the exponential get fucking crazy and it would be madness to write that as e^(something). Same reason we do log instead of ln. Looks clearer when you have shit like loglogloglog instead of lnlnlnlnln

...

underrated

It stands for Wombo

>We do
Actual mathematicians do. You do not

...

niceee

Log likelihood

In gaudy color for added beauty.

[math]{a}^{2} + {b}^{2} = {c}^{2}[/math]

underrated

Neil Degrasse Tyson + a popsci culture = a board which constantly shits on some guy who is, at most, pretentious at times all because a group of people worship him because "oh look black man doing science!"

I call it the Veeky Forums equation, powerful no?

Qen/e0 = int(E.A)


even though I have no fucking idea how it works

first of all learn how to write it dude:

[math]\oint \vec{E} \cdot d\vec{A} = \frac{q_{enc}}{\epsilon_0}[/math]

it should be e^pi * i = -1

4 is very important
4+1=5

>i*e^pi=-1
ah yes

>Not the cosine rule
The fuck outta here

came here to post this
U did alright m8

>be faggot
>have never done anything of substance or meaning in my life
>get by on 'lol i am le smarty gifted genius boy' meme as my only source of self-esteem
>use my superior intellect to choose the ideal, most interesting, substantial, personally-meaningful thing possible to permantly ink on my skinnyfat appendage
eureka.f90

lol this is good

i would respond to your post but i don't want to dignify it with a response

>Americans in charge of notation.

[eqn] \oint _S \mathbf E \cdot \mathbf S = \frac{Q}{\epsilon_0}

>complains about notation
>posts broken retard screeching

forgot the closing tag.

[eqn]\oint _S \mathbf E \cdot \mathbf S = \frac{Q}{\epsilon_0}[/eqn]

and the d.

[eqn] \oint _S \mathbf E \cdot d \mathbf S = \frac{Q}{\epsilon_0}[/eqn]

lol rekt

fagg

[eqn] P = \frac{dW}{dt} [\eqn]

What's this PDE represent?

how did you make the integral larger??

it's euler lagrange, the solution is a function which extremizes a the functional

[math]S[y] = \int L(y,\dot{y},t)dt[/math]

[math]\delta S =0[/math]

this is just a restatement of the pde in the op.

I'm black.

ik isn't is more beautiful that way tho?
K.

Shouldn't the fundamental nature of things be.... simpler??

Sets are not expressions you stupid.

P=I*E
It calculates electrical power and it spells pie. Can an equation be any more powerful?

>implying we've found the true fundamental nature

[eqn]80085 = 80085[/eqn]

check mate

>The standard model is all of those possible terms in 4-dimensional spacetime that keeps the theory *renormalizable* which cannot be understood through these means. Stokes theorem has nothing to say about why terms like
are you saying that stoke's theorem is limited because it doesn't predict physics?

holy shit kill yourself

quads don't lie

If you don't understand this, you need to get out of Veeky Forums.