Math is so beautiful

people who dislike math are much worse

>"wow it's amazing that even this is related to pi"
>original equation had a trig identity

Most branches of mathematics are a set of pretty simple set of equations. You have to realize that when you tabulate it out, the brackets win out over the lines because circles are like all absorbing. Disciplines such as calculus is like putting blocks through similar shaped holes, Topology like sidebending a block, and trigonometry is like throwing toilet paper over trees.

numbers are just cosmetic, like equal signs.

\thread

I have plenty of friends. I just prefer to be with people who aren't soulless posers.

burning ship is such a cool fractal. at first it's so boring but you look in the right places with the right coloring methods and get all sorts of different stuff

...

whole juliua

just weird and unexpected

my favorite one is
>i fucking love science! xD

wtf are you smoking

incidentally, OP's post is why mathfags don't like anyone

>>pi is everywhere!
π really is fucking everywhere though

Checked and keked

>walk 4 meters
>in those two seconds I crossed pi millimetres, pi centimetres, pi inces and pi metres
mind fucking BLOWN. this bitch is everywhere!

>4 meters in 2 seconds

Mindblowing

>this bitch is everywhere!

don't know why I keked so hard at this

keep it up
also i hope you help those who have a genuine interest in math

>HEY user, WHAT'S YOUR MAJOR?
>OH... WELL... PURE MATHEMATICS
>OH I HATE MATH
>WELL FUCK YOU THEN
>

>help my friend who's only in calc I with studying
>"why exactly is d/dx e^x = e^x? isn't e just some constant in probability?"
>show him how you can use the definition of a derivative on the definition of e^x ((1+1/n)^nx, n-> infty) to show that the derivative is the same
>next day
>why is there a natural log term when you take the derivative of 2^x?

i think they just ask these questions rhetorically, since they never pay any attention at all and choose to be reductionist whenever possible when dealing with abstract material

>he doesn't love le math geeks
they literally worship me dude

Do you guys not recognize this as pure narcissism? It's like your pursuit of mathematics is driven by a need to cling to your own superiority complex. Pursuit of maths and sciences without practical function is fascinating, rewarding (in the same way that general exercise is), and inevitable, but when it's applied to the betterment of conscious existence it transcends the masturbatory.

i'm guessing it isn't easily apparent why this would annoy actual math lovers

when you spend a great deal of your time trying to learn a subject, it's a given that your view of the subject itself will change as you move along
what regular people see when they look at math videos about pi, golden spiral, etc. they see how math's applications can be really interesting, and some might even think the math behind it is kinda interesting
however if you tried to show a regular person some interesting proof, even in a classroom context, they'll likely gloss over it like it's nothing or just not care
what actual math lovers do when they watch these videos is wonder why something so obvious is being presented (or nitpick on anything the video left out or was unclear on), since actual math lovers are so far ahead of this that it's hard to see why it would even be interesting
regular people also tend to put on a reductionist outlook when they see these videos, and ask questions like, for example, "what does it even MEAN to have a non-integer exponent?" when questions like this have no answer that is as intuitive as, for this example, integer exponents.

what mathematicians see is that not only do regular people not know much about math at all, but they choose to be reductionist about it and in addition they don't care about "real math", since normal people tend to not care about rigor or whatever abstract complicated subject the mathematician is currently studying.

and since normal people love talking about things they find interesting, actual math lovers sit there and listen to someones profound love over a subject they're light years behind you in, while also not fully grasping the meanings or reasons behind it (and overstating it), while also not caring about the real reasons either

it's like having the same interests as someone else, except that other person doesn't care about it whenever you talk about it; it's infuriating

Is there any way to produce an equation from two different curves’ orthogonal lines at changing points where they intercept?

I can understand this. I still think the spirit of this mentality is a bit unhealthy, but I get that people that have a pseudo interest in a subject and use intellectual ideas as a sort of fashionable accessory would feel insulting. But to me, the best way around this would be to expand the lexicon of ideas that you can articulate the applicable value of to the layman. I'm not personally a physicist, but I certainly appreciate Steven Hawking's earnest pursuit to explain ideas that would normally be incomprehensible to anybody outside of the field. In fact I think it's important that experts of any field do.

To make an analogy, historians have incredibly comprehensive knowledge of names and dates that nobody outside of the field is going to bother studying, but if you can explain a historical event in a broad enough way, even the uninitiated can grasp the concept of power vacuums and the importance of diffusing unstable concentrations of unchecked power.

not him

There is a huge difference between applications of maths and finding beauty in a proof. But the only way to show any maths to non-mathematicians is by applications since you have to understand a lot of maths to understand why certain proofs etc are beautiful.

I had a fucking prof like you.
>get Show work on the top of every essay or lab
>Ask how to show more work everytime
>Get scoffed at and say you can't help me if I don't know

>grade previous exam while class takes exam
>Loudly grade "This isn't even possible." "thanks for wasting my time." "clearly you don't understand this..."
>All students look up in horror and back down to paper

>Sit in on the Honors Calc class, same section as mine
>Ask the honors prof about my work before turning it in
>He says it all looks perfectly fine and he'd give me an A.
>usual D from my professor with "show more work"

>last exam back with "show work" at the top. Did everything I possibly could to each expression or equation
>Ask what a proper response would be
>Literally what I wrote
>Oh, guess you were right
>The only test I did well on graded after the fact

Fucking calc2. I'm like 80% sure they were failing me just because they could. I would think I was shit if it wasnt for that second professors class I sat in on.

what lame fuck you are, I got a high five from my first professor when I told I appreciated something about series.

seems a bit complicated, i get what you're asking but if you have x0, f0(x), x1, f1(x), if you keep x0 fixed and move x1, you'll draw one line with f1(x), and then if you keep x1 and move x0, you'll get another curve. you'll have infinitely many

but if you let x0=x1, you will indeed define a curve

it's parametric though and i'm going to kill myself typing it out but here it is
for the sake of simplicity, let f denote f(t), g denote g(t), r denote 1/f'(t), s denote 1/g'(t) and finally m = (f-g)/(r-s), for parametric (x(t),y(t)) we have:
x(t) = t +( (f - g) / (r - s) ) = t+m
y(t) = (1/2) (f + g - r*m - s*m)

i honestly don't understand why people on here think that the best solution to this problem is to provide even further popsci
i'm not at all saying popsci is bad, that's not the scope of this argument, but the problem we just faced, the mentality itself, is a natural mentality. unhealthy as it is, it's natural and it must be overcome from the mathematicians side. they must become conscious to this schism in world views - specifically regarding math.

normal professors are able to either ignore the popsci craze or even help develop it further by helping the student (or even the class) understand more about the subject in the same, easily digestible way popsci is given

developing popsci further would just allow more of the surface to be digestible to the regular masses, but you can never develop popsci enough to make analyses of symplectic geometry anywhere near palatable for normal people; there is a cutoff as to how far popsci can go. the only solution to popsci is changing our mentality surrounding the reactions to popsci, as popsci is not a problem in itself.

i should've stated this earlier but popsci is a valuable means to teaching the masses and gaining interests in math and science fields, and to discard this would, in fact, just harm the field as a whole

I do lament that I don't have a more thorough understanding of mathematics, but I've always considered proofs to be the most interesting and beautiful aspiration of mathematicians. I consider it a philosophical, creative, and almost artistic pursuit, and I admire people that pursue it. I still think that it's better to foster people's interest and understanding of math through arguably reductive characterizations of it than to try to alienate people from it out of pretension. Like, pop scientists are annoying and stupid a lot of the time, but I'd rather have that than a populace that knows literally nothing about its virtues.

>there is a cutoff as to how far popsci can go

Maybe so. Maybe not though, I learned a lot from reading Steven Hawking. He's not a pop scientist the way NDT or Bill Nye is, but he certainly presents it all in a way that somebody can glean it's knowledge without becoming an expert in the field. And if we find elegant ways to communicate more and more difficult ideas, perhaps those can accumulate to the point that they serve as a bridge to certain ideas that are even more difficult. What we don't want is for popsci to eclipse real science, or to hijack layman explanations in a way that just confuses people more, intentionally or not.

there still comes a point where people just won't watch every single popsci video out there. you still have to consider that people only go so far with popsci videos, and it still will never be enough to catch up to math lovers and mathematicians knowledge

and lets say it did, they still won't have the proper foundation and background to fully appreciate the subject, leading to slight yet noticeable inaccuracies when discussing the subject

the problem still lies on the mathematicians shoulders to disregard the natural instinct to become disgusted by popsci.

>math grads ending up as bitter teachers
like pottery

if you're in math and don't have a 160 IQ, you're wasting your time

>mathturbatory*

Am I in this class if I feel this way about [math]e^{ix}[/math]? Just blew my mind when I saw it, but I am a brainlet so that would make sense.

No, seeing that for the first time is amazing. Seeing the reasoning behind it via Taylor series, group theory, or what-have-you is even more so.

I forget when and how I first came across the identity (perhaps senior year?), but the very first time it was formally shown was by my Differential Equations professor. There was no proof or teaching of the identity, it was just used to derive the solution for when a complex number was calculated using the characteristic equation. In a class of 10 people, most of the reactions were quite subdued, and some straight-up didn't care -- one guy just asked if we had to remember that for the exam.

Don't cream your pants about the trivial things, save it for the cool results you come across in class.

Can you guys explain what it is you're talking about? I'm reading up online, it's like a proof that two equations are functionally identical?

livescience.com/51399-eulers-identity.html

That he could walk that slow?