Let

>let

I shouldn't have laughed as hard as I did at this.

Let [math]OP \in\ \{x| x \space is \space a \space faggot\} [/math]

>(Why?)

>necessary and sufficient

That cat has eosinophilic granuloma on its lower lip. It is suffering from allergic reaction.

I don't get it

>prove that

>which we state without proof

>left as a exercise for the reader

>which was proven in Exercise 43 of the previous chapter

This pisses me off!

It's meaningless bullshit some STEM people say to sound smart

t. brainlet triggered that he actually has to do the problem sets

>get

>suppose
>relax the assumption in

>without loss of generality we

WE NOT

REEEEAAAAUUUUUUGH *splits kahler manifold*

>By performing a trivial calculation,

>proof: exercise to the reader
>answer in solution key: routine

>for reference, this was defined in section A chapter 12 in my other textbook
>you can buy an access key for it on my website site for just $129.99

Brainlets.

>choose [math] \delta = [/math] *some arcane expression that looks pulled right out of somebody's ass*

>assume that

I feel this strongly. Also,
>Consider the auxiliary function g(x) which maps x to [terrible formalism devoid of interpretation meant only to surpass a small technical difficulty]

>trivial

At first I thought the joke was that he looked like in the image but now im confused

>in particular

>deduced
>"note:"

>proof: Think

>such that

>by induction on n

>proof: simply do it!

Why? it just means iff.

>using equation (69.a) found on page 302, we find that...

>thus

>If you don't understand this you are stupid

Actually saw this in a math book

this lol

Which book?

An early edition

>per se

...

>ceteris paribus

>!

>even the books are telling me to make hapa children
>must not give in...

If you're gonna meme a meme book, at least tell the truth instead of making up lies

>(Prove this!)

>Q.E.D

>find free pdf of textbook needed for class
>have to buy $90 access code anyway to do the online homework

...

>this guy

>...and so the solution is obvious
>the solution wasn't obvious

Is that that chick from mr robot?

>ocaml program
>contains 10 nested let expressions

zozzle

>And through trivial induction, we can deduce...

...

>for consistency's sake

>using the theorem from (4.3)

>it's a intro course where the formulas come from thin air episode

>textbook refers to a figure that is on a different page

>using equation (13.10)
>equation (13.10) is 10 pages back and it's buried in a clusterfuck of unintuitive notation
>fucking multivariate statistical methods