Any true mathematical statement is logically equivalent to the axiomatic framework within which it occurs. If you do not understand such a statement, there are only two possibilities:
1. You do not understand the axioms.
Axioms are chosen so that they are evident a priori (eg. the probability of all disjoint events must sum to unity). If all the axioms are not clear to you, there is something seriously wrong with your reasoning faculties.
2. You do not understand logic.
If you understand the axioms, then the only thing that could prevent you from understanding a true mathematical statement is an inability to reason logically. Such a crippling deficiency defines what it means to be retarded.
This case analysis exhaustively proves that if you don't understand math, you are retarded. ■ corollary
Now one must be wary of students formally enrolled in programs of study devoted to mathematics (and its bastard child, computer science).
These people misunderstand mathematics (read: are retarded) to such an extent that they have resorted to paying other people money for instruction in the obvious.
I would advise that you discriminate harshly against these people in any hiring process you are involved in, but this treatment is unnecessary. Students of mathematics and computer science have a natural, elegant way of pruning themselves from competitive environments, reminiscent of the theories of Darwin:
In interviews and other social interactions, these students will actively avoid eye contact, mumble in conversation, exhibit poor posture, and generally appear reprehensible.i Hiring managers, potential mates, and family members can all quickly identify these qualities and deliver a rejection to an inquiring student of mathematics.
Jason Barnes
>mathematics (and its bastard child, computer science)
You are the only retard in here as I see user.
Ethan Sanders
If you think something is easy you didn't go deep enough
Blake Robinson
>Mathematics is just logic + axioms And you're calling other people retarded...
Joshua Bell
>whats set theory >whats a theorem
op, you're dumb.
John Flores
Shit, guys, quit your majors, this motherfucker just solved math.
Logan Allen
The theorem follows logically from the axioms. Meaning math involves no creativity and will probably be replaced by computers some time in the next 5 years.
Robert Lewis
I can't solve that because I dont know what any of that stands for.
Brayden Hill
You saying that you don't know what an integral is? Or are you making fun or Americans for saying [math]\ln[/math] instead of [math]\log[/math]
John Hill
>t. compscitard >implying it isn't What is it, then?
Austin Davis
I agree OP. If mathematics doesn't come easily to you, I implore you not to go into STEM. It's infuriating having to break down and slowly explicate every single idea so 100 IQ brainlets can think they understand it.
Angel Stewart
>Meaning math involves no creativity Stating conjectures anyone would care about and constructing proofs involves creativity. >will probably be replaced by computers some time in the next 5 years The problem of determining whether or not a proposition is a theorem is undecidable in general.
David Young
what's an axiom
Eli Rivera
>a priori Slow down there Descartes.
Charles Sanchez
>pic It's 1
Leo Lee
Since you understand mathematics so well can you explain the basic principles behind interuniversal teichmuller theory to me?
Luke Ross
Cute problem. Start with u = 6 - x.
Nathaniel Reyes
>mathematics is easy >post an calc 1 integral no shit.
William Cook
It's from the 1987 Putnam exam
Oliver Cruz
fuck I forget everything about calculus >rationalize the denominator >use log rules to unfraction it >integrate right?
William Thompson
Won't work. This is a (now) classical trick integration problem; there is no closed-form antiderivative. You have to exploit some kind of symmetry in the integral. The substitution u = 3 - x makes the integral a little prettier. Then one more substitution will change the integrand but not the integral signs; maybe you can add, subtract, or multiply the original integral with the transformed one and get something nicer. Often times these things end up being recursive, i.e., you get that the value of the integral is (something) plus the value of the integral, so the integral is that (something) divided by two.
There are lots of tricks you can use, but only a few very specific ones will give you the right answer, and you probably didn't do much of these types of problems in calc 1/2.
Luke Bailey
Yeah ok. A couple times I accidentally copied a question wrong and ended up with some recursive shit that drove me nuts.
Christian Myers
the problem with mathematics is that you can study it for years until you finally reach the point of using it, and it can take 10,20 or even 30 years until you apply mathematics to something. this is why kids hate math, its because they can't see the light in the end of the tunnel. most of the stuff they will forget eventually, and they will have to constantly refresh. if we had a way to show students how math is applied in various fields, people would be much more inclined to study it. but there is a barrier of autism between academy and industry that people don't talk about. so practicing math has become a "sport" of people trying to get the right answer for nothing. this applies to everything in life, you can study music theory for years but you never seen a fucking guitar then you won't know how to play it. even if you have the same theory in mind like Beethoven did
Easton Perez
Recursive integrals are great though. If you see what you started with in your solution, you're almost done!
Liam Jackson
how? You have to integrate again forever
Samuel Bailey
Here's an example.
Adrian Hall
but it's not done
Wyatt Collins
But it is done. I left out the integral of sec(x) because it's not really important, but just replace it with ln|sec(x) + tan(x)| + C if you want.
Landon Myers
now I feel stupid but what if you got something that wasn't really done, just do that again?
Easton Williams
If you're trying to find out what I is, and you get an expression that includes I, just solve it like you would any equation:
x = 15 - x
2x = 15
x = 15/2
I'm not sure what you mean by "wasn't really done," this is just one example of a case where integrating by parts gives you an expression in terms of the original integral so we can use this trick.
Kayden Sanders
like if secx didn't just integrate easily and you got another integral I've had things with transcendentals that were just endless trig substitutions that just went nowhere
Jose Sanchez
In that case, try something different. Not everything has a closed form antiderivative anyway.
Jayden Jones
if a part repeats again you can treat a said integral as a separate equation and do the same, and then plug in the result into the first one. I suspect 9ts not what you mean though and im stating the obvious
Austin Jackson
I don't even remember I'm talking about stuff I did years ago and I barely touched since
Ethan Reyes
>Meaning math involves no creativity Did you ace calc 1 last semester?
Elijah Campbell
>In interviews and other social interactions, these students will actively avoid eye contact, mumble in conversation, exhibit poor posture, and generally appear reprehensible.i Hiring managers, potential mates, and family members can all quickly identify these qualities and deliver a rejection to an inquiring student of mathematics
tfw ok at math but also have above average social skills
Easton Scott
>Posts that on an Italian beachcomber enthusiasts message board using a computer and programs developed by computer scientists
Ryder Morales
...
Cooper Clark
The first one is something you would not inherently know or understand, so a peraon who has not been taught about axioms wouldn't understand simply from a lack of knowledge.
Second, logic comes from knowledge. Again a lack if knowledge is a lack of education, not ability.
Therefore we can see that OP is incorrect. There are other reasons why a person can find math difficult, but OP is still retarded.
Jace Ross
religion is easy. If you think it's hard, you are retarded. proof Any true religion is empirically equivalent to the axiomatic framework within which it occurs. If you do not understand such a statement, there are only two possibilities: >1. You do not understand the religion. religions are chosen so that they are evident a priori (eg. the belief of all mathematical events must sum to knowledge). If all the religions are not clear to you, there is something seriously wrong with your reasoning faculties. 2. You do not understand magic. If you understand the religions, then the only thing that could prevent you from understanding a true religion is an inability to reason magically. Such a crippling deficiency defines what it means to be retarded. This case analysis exhaustively proves that if you don't understand religion, you are retarded. ■ corollary Now one must be wary of students formally enrolled in programs of study devoted to religion(and its bastard child, computer science). These people misunderstand religion (read: are retarded) to such an extent that they have resorted to paying other people money for instruction in the obvious. I would advise that you discriminate harshly against these people in any hiring process you are involved in, but this treatment is unnecessary. Students of religion and astrology have a natural, elegant way of pruning themselves from competitive environments, reminiscent of the theories of george w. bush: >In interviews and other social interactions, these students will actively avoid genitalia contact, mumble in sexual desire, exhibit poor niggers, and generally appear irish.i Hiring george clooney, pamela anderson, and family members can all quickly identify these qualities and deliver a rejection to an inquiring student of religion.
op has autism q.e.d.
Owen Young
cringe
Connor Brooks
>cringing at a parody written with low effort on Veeky Forums
op you rise higher and higher on the spectrum
Isaiah Brown
cringing at anything is so normie style that i wish for you to leave this site