/mg/ methematics general -- dude amphetamines lmao edition

Thais amphetamine salts

and why do you spread bullshit?
>After 1971 he also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erdős#cite_note-24
untruth.org/~josh/math/Paul Erd�s bio-rev2.pdf

安非他明是合法的

What's the biggest number you've ever counted to?

Numbers of Given Fucks

Zero Fucks Given
One Fucks Given
Two Fucks Given
Three Fucks Given
Four Fucks Given
Five Fucks Given
Six Fucks Given
Seven Fucks Given
Eight Fucks Given
Nine Fucks Given
10 Given Fucks - Fuck One

My Given Fucks Based Counting System.
Index:[0]+{1, i, I}
1 ? i : 0 : Given ? Fucks
I ? 1 : One : Fucks ? Given

>""""axiom""""""
>>>>>>>>>>>>"""""""""""""of""""""""""""""""""
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"""""""""""""""""""""choice"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

S(ϕ) = 6.28319

excuse me, please delete this

Can someone link me or give me the picture of the state of american education, the one that gives a lengthy account of why college algebra is a joke

...

wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.5 + \pi S(\phi)

>> 9416965(你)
對不起,請刪除此

有人可以聯繫我或者給我美國教育狀況的畫面,一個是給出了一個冗長的賬號,為什麼大學代數是一個笑話

咖特

Thanks

所有的補習班在一個地方...

看看今天大學的“嚴肅”課程。

末日教授

該公司位於:

我讀過很多文章,質疑有問題的大學課堂,比如叔本華的倫理學,但沒有人像數學一樣談論大學的“嚴肅”科目。

大量的補救性欺詐使得大學的學習基礎得到了大幅度的拓展,但只提供了許多與高中相媲美的課程。事實上,把這種物質稱為高中是相當慷慨的。仔細看看數學補救課程,以便更容易地看到這個關鍵的機構收入來源發生了什麼:

大學代數

該公司位於:

“這就是所謂的大學代數,因為沒有人會為你在高中學習的”代數“付錢。

- 老師(不是我,雖然我希望如此)。

該公司位於:

代數是數學的基本語言,在現代社會,完成大量的數學工作幾乎是不可能的,不熟悉代數的語法。我的數學有點慢,比“頂尖”學生落後一年。所以我選擇了十一年級的代數,而不是十年級的好學生,但問題是今天的大學教科書曾經是高中教科書。

該公司位於:

“教授的數學課很難,你必須去上課。”

- 無形的學生評論,無疑與其他課程相比,課程難度的定義。

該公司位於:

大學代數是必修課,語言,記譜法,注重細節學習幾乎是本領域其他基本要素。這是100多門課程的先決條件,但是政府一直試圖擺脫它,如果不這樣做,將阻止學生走出許多最有利可圖的學習領域 - 讓學生受益而不是管理他們。

該公司位於:

在我的大學(和別處)提供的大學代數課程與20世紀80年代提供的非大學學分課程沒有什麼不同。這和我在高中的代數課沒什麼兩樣。主要區別在於,大學代數比我的高中課程少,不討論矩陣,圓,橢圓,距離,雙曲線,不等式等等。這實際上代表了許多低水平的大學課程:他們的教學比同名的高中階段少。因此,大學代數屬於補救課程的討論,因為它曾經是一種補救措施;只有行政筆的筆改變了立場。

該公司位於:

通過大學代數課程的比例通常在50%以上,但由於政府面臨的壓力和威脅越來越大,一個學期到另一個學期的國立大學比例從50%上升到85%以上。然而,這個課程不過是強制性的,受到管理者嚴厲的批評(院長稱之為“畢業的障礙”),儘管這是一個邊緣化的高中課程。大學代數現在代表了學生可能學習的最先進的材料。

該公司位於:

Pitchman:“我們可以肯定的是,高校代數高的學生經常參加高中代數課,不熟悉”大學代數“的學生上高中。

該公司位於:

老師:“等一下,你說什麼,我們知道的事實證明你必須把這個目標推向成功,以達到你的學習目標,為什麼你還沒有公佈結果?

該公司位於:

Pitchman:“這是不合格的。”

該公司位於:

- 交換教師和展台的工作人員,討論標準化考試,從一個非常流行的,這往往是安置學生的結果。

上面的這句話意味著一個道理:一個人的最高技能不可能是最近學到的技能。為了適應高中代數,學生必須推翻高中代數的概念。

該公司位於:

由於大學代數並不像行政人員那樣愉快,許多校園提供“代數”課程,其中包括至少聽起來像真正的課程的“代數”假課程。這些課程是通過“去除學生不需要的材料”來合理化的,並且有大量的材料。雖然這是大學學分,但很少有補救措施,雖然有一些變化。那麼,大學學分:課程很少轉移,不准備為學生(記住,大學代數是100多門課程的先決條件)。換句話說,虛擬代數類的合格率通常要高得多,這使得行政部門非常高興

你用國語寫的發帖真不錯

每天在別人面前做戲很累...

你寫的普通話真的好崗位

每日遊戲在別人面前很累...

How do I calculate the number of sharpies that can fit in my pooper?

我確定你頂多就十四歲
>每日遊戲在別人面前很累
這不是一回事! 你不懂我的意思啊...

trial and error is the only way, i'm 'fraid

I'm having an extreme brainlet moment. How do I parametrise the line from the origin that passes through the unit circle (first quadrant) in R^2?

"the"? Also, wouldn't any line pass through the unit circle? or any circle for that matter.

Yeah, I mean given any point x on the circle, to write down the line associated to that point that goes through the origin, and it is unique

Same way you parametrize a line through any two points.

[math](1 - \theta)\ \mathbf{0} + \theta\ \mathbf{x}[/math]

if it passes through (a,b) then ay - bx = 0

If you have a point (x',y') then y=y'/x'x, if you have an angle t then y=tan(t)x.

如何計算,可以適合我的興致大減騙子的號碼嗎?

我敢肯定,你是十四歲最多,
在別人面前每日累遊戲<
>這是不一樣的東西! 你不明白我的意思啊...

試錯是唯一的出路,我'冒牌貨

我有一個極端的brainlet時刻。 我如何參數化從通過在R ^ 2單位圓(第一象限)穿過原點行?

如果它穿過(A,B),然後AY - BX = 0

What the fuck happened to /mg/?

how do yall feel about cryptography?

seems like a cool area of applied math.

Shashi Mohan Srivastava

The few people who used to post math either killed themselves or left.

>applied math
No such thing.

So I was trying to find the projection of the first quadrant of the unit circle onto the line 1-x. Is my reasoning/answer correct?

The problem I am trying to solve is to show that the suspension of the unit n-sphere is homeomorphic to the n+1-sphere, [math]\Sigma S^n\cong S^{n+1}[/math], where [math]\Sigma X = X\times[-1,1]/\sim[/math], where [math]\sim[/math] is the relation [math](x,-1)\sim(x',-1)[/math] and [math](x,1)\sim(x',-1)[/math].

>Is my reasoning/answer correct?
The "unit circle" is not well-defined, so no.

That looks a bit hard, imo. You could do it like this: First define a function [math]S^n\times[-1, 1] \to S^{n+1}[/math] by [math](x, t) \mapsto (\sqrt{1-t^2}x, t)[/math], which you will show is well defined, continuous and surjective. Then you will define a relation [math]R_f[/math] by [math](x, t)R_f(y, s) \Leftrightarrow f(x, t)=f(y, s)[/math] which you will show to be the same as [math]\sim[/math]. Finally, since spheres and closed intervals are compact, so is their product, and therefore the function defined above is closed (because compact sets are closed in Hausdorff spaces and spheres are Hausdorff). There is a result saying that if you have a continuous and open or closed surjection [math]g\colon X\to Y[/math] and define [math]R_g[/math] like above, then there is a homeomorphism [math]X/R_g \to Y[/math] given by [math][x]\mapsto g(x)[/math]. You will then have a chain of homeomorphisms [math]S^n\times [-1, 1]/R_f = S^n\times [-1, 1]/\sim \approx S^{n+1}[/math], from which the claim follows.

Thanks you're right - there is an easier result that skips the last steps which you may have overlooked: a bijective continuous map from a compact space to a Hausdorff space is bicontinuous, and the form of the relation automatically makes it an injective map so we're done.

I didn't overlook them, I left the gaps for you to fill. You can use the same method to show that the cone of an sphere is homeomorphic to a closed disk, or that shrinking the boundary of a closed disk gives you a sphere,etc. Try to do those if you feel like it.

Not that guy but Ritalin is methylphenidate, an alternative to amphetamines with similar characteristics.

Actually, it's because whenever anyone posts some math problem or anything like it everyone immediately assumes that they're posting their homework. We need to trust each other more.

Obvious homework is obvious. No mercy for college kids unless they post triple integrals. Besides, whenever someone posts something related to a subfield of math, people start complaining about the categorical approach, how homotopy has ruined mathematics, how analysis is engineering shit, how number theory is autistic wankery meant for hs kids, etc. No real response is recieved, and that sucks away the drive to post any abstract nonsense, as the readers behave like neo-Swedes. This is why I discuss this stuff with my animals instead of you guys and the guy who doesn't admit he's a guy. [math]^o\frown^o[/math]

>he

[math]^\frown\smile^\frown[/math]

>neo-Swedes
Please explain, we're not all from /pol/.

>people start complaining about the categorical approach
They must really despise mathematics then.

Category theory is irrelevant to most mathematics, anyway

Just because you're a brainlet and weren't able to enjoy it doesn't mean others met the same fate.

What animals would you recommend to discuss math with?

>Just because you're a brainlet and weren't able to enjoy it doesn't mean others met the same fate.
Neither my degree of enjoyment nor yours changes the irrelevance of category theory to most mathematics

Do you deny your nature?

mudniggers

>This is why I discuss this stuff with my animals instead of you guys and the guy who doesn't admit he's a guy.
Wait...are you the person I recommended Fomeko's art book too? The one with the mismatched socks and stuffed animals?

Dark, violent, uncivilized, full of desire to defile and rape. Some call them apes or monkeys, but I don't like degrading fine animals like chimps or gorillas like that.

Analcysts sometimes come with brain malfunctions.

Anything cute. Stuffed animals are the best, but I sometimes talk to birds or squirrels. I'd like to meet a hedgehog in the wild and talk to it. Horses are nice too, and sheep. Cows are too distracting with their mooing, but it's fun to put your hand inside a calf's mouth.

Um, excuse me can we have MATH discussion here.

Opinions on Wildberger's new algebraic calculus series? Do you think he can do it?

>that sucks away the drive to post any abstract nonsense
I suggest simply not to care what non-mathematicians say about math.

Perhaps. Depends on what you are gonna do that person.

>calculus
>MATH discussion

>ALGEBRAIC calculus
>not math discussion
No one is impressed because you add a smug anime girl to your posts, so cut the shit - add positive content to the thread or piss off.

what the fuck erdos

Finitists need to get lined up against a wall and promptly shot in the back of the head.

>ALGEBRAIC calculus
>ALGEBRAIC
>calculus

>his brain is too tiny to understand the different schools of mathematical thought that developed historically and continue into today
Even mathematicians of Cantor's time were dubious of the notion of "infinite" sets. Read a book.

Wildberger is a "finitist" in name only.

>Even mathematicians of Cantor's time were dubious of the notion of "infinite" sets. Read a book.
Literally irrelevant, might as well start taking alchemy seriously since Newton liked it

What do you mean? He vehemently denies any mathematics related to ideas which require infinite "processes" or infinite sets.

Alright, so it's apparent you don't care about critical mathematical issues and would rather live in an ignorant bubble of just accepting anything shoved down your throat. Nice talking to you.

Critical how? Finitists are wrong.

"Wrong" how?

Ask if you enjoyed the book, I certainly did but no one I know has read it and most don't have an interest in reading it, so I was hoping to finally get someone else's opinion on the book. I myself really enjoy the art and it's the reason that I've decided to pick up drawing/painting again. I also liked how it provided a different way at looking at mathematical objects, it's not uncommon for artists to try and weave ideas into their art, with mathematics being a frequent source of ideas

@9419068
>Even mathematicians of Cantor's time were dubious of the notion of "infinite" sets.
This is a math thread. If you want to make retarded non-arguments, I suggest you try somewhere else, preferably a different board or site altogether.

Yet he freely uses "infinite objects" like the type of integers and rationals.

>Yet he freely uses "infinite objects" like the type of integers and rationals.
Those aren't "infinite objects".

I believe in his sharp mind. He has the touch of Midas.

>No one is impressed because you add a smug anime girl to your posts
But it is the ultimate debating method.

I haven't read his art book yet, but I'm planning to take a look at it later. Have you read the Topological Picture Book by Francis? It had some nice pictures.

It's more and more evident that you're just a "mathematician" in a name and not of body. Disgusting disgrace.

...

Go away brainlet.

You first.

Prove it.

>Prove it.
Burden of proof is on you, brainlet.

>Analcysts
Analysts*.
Also with things like Atiyah-Singer and Atiyah-Bott it'd only be a matter of time before analysis becomes a subfield of topology.

>""Burden of proof""
Found the non-mathematician. The proper thread for you is

>Analysts*.
Analcysts*.

Wrong.

>claims without proof are taken to be true
Found the non-mathematician.

No, no, it's not nonsense bro you just don't have the physical """""intuition""""" to understand that!
Besides, mathematicians crying about rigour are hypocritical because they consider conditional proofs valid.

Did you waste all your C's on integrals or did you just make a typo?

>Wrong.
Right and wrong. Those mathematicians that dislike the supposed "lack of rigor" in physics should also reject statements proven assuming generalized RH/CH.

I don't think you're cut out for this discussion sweetie.

Have you ever been to a CS conference? Their shit's even more fucked up. Assuming anything that is not proven (except axioms lol) cannot yield a proof.

>waste
I'd say they're well spent.

There are good and bad opinions. Sadly both are allowed in the declining West.

A proof is a proof. Doesn't matter who comes up with it. This is /mg/ not r/atheism.