I can rock geometry hardcore. There aren't a whole lot of assumptions there that's a definition.
Now rationalizing the denominator...we were big on "no negative exponents" so that's about my best defense but really, why do we do that.
there's no point to rationalizing
it's just kinda dumb really.
also. there are 5 assumptions in euclidean geometry.
There are 5 basic postulates, P5 being the one that is "optional." That creates non-euclid geometry (when I say P5 I mean the one about assuming lines with less than 180 interior sum will result in an intersection)
that's what i'm saying.
That is just as much as saying 0! = 1
it's really almost as basic
I dunno I think of P5 as more of a fork in mathematics though. 0! = 1 is never really argued against. Nobody is like "well what is 0! was 0 let's create a branch of math"
I hate leaving students unsatisfied with "because it is" when math is sound enough to be explained.
well in this case setting 0! to 0 just makes a useless branch of mathematics. the fork just isnt interesting
Kovak on
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
My friend got the Pythagorean theorem tattooed on his arm earlier today.
geometry is the sexiest no doubt...it pretty much created how we argue
algebra is like geometry's high class cousin
it's way sexier
More like Linear Algebra
Tossrock on
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
well the way he got it is a right triangle, with the sides labeled a, b, and sqrt(a^2+b^2). But yeah, I agree, kinda boring, but he has been dead set on this for fucking ever.
Straightzi on
0
Options
Tossrocktoo weird to livetoo rare to dieRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
some form of that (without the labels) would be a classy way to do it
some form of that (without the labels) would be a classy way to do it
only smart people would get it
If you're going to go that route do a cool proof. We had presidents that thought this shit up during congressional hearings and had discussions about it.
How many congressman we have now do you think could understand this:
I can rock geometry hardcore. There aren't a whole lot of assumptions there that's a definition.
Now rationalizing the denominator...we were big on "no negative exponents" so that's about my best defense but really, why do we do that.
there's no point to rationalizing
it's just kinda dumb really.
also. there are 5 assumptions in euclidean geometry.
There are 5 basic postulates, P5 being the one that is "optional." That creates non-euclid geometry (when I say P5 I mean the one about assuming lines with less than 180 interior sum will result in an intersection)
that's what i'm saying.
That is just as much as saying 0! = 1
it's really almost as basic
I dunno I think of P5 as more of a fork in mathematics though. 0! = 1 is never really argued against. Nobody is like "well what is 0! was 0 let's create a branch of math"
I hate leaving students unsatisfied with "because it is" when math is sound enough to be explained.
One of the good things that my teacher does is use the complicated solutions to stuff like 0! = 1, even if only a few people in the class get it. A lot better than teaching to the slowest students like most teachers at my high school do and ignoring the other end of the class. I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet here, being better at maths than the people at my school is really nothing.
I was at a physics bowl once in high school, and at the end, our team was in a three-way tie for 1st. They asked us about six tie-breaker questions, which all three teams kept getting right, when the moderator finally threw up his hands and said "Whoever knows the most digits of pi wins!"
I won $40 for everyone on my team.
Also, I submit that knot theory is the sexiest math.
Framling on
you're = you are
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
I like this maths riddle, but I'm sure for math duders it wouldn't be hard. I only heard it the other day and overlooked the flaw, only looked for like 2 minutes, didn't want to depart from the guy who told me without knowing the answer because I wouldn't see him for a bit.
x^2 - x^2 = x^2 - x^2
x ( x - x ) = (x + x) ( x - x)
x = 2x
Finding the equations of lines tangential to curves (a straight line that touches the curve at one point), and areas between curves and axes (the 0 lines on a graph) is about the most simple stuff.
There's always the golden ratio - a lot of ratios of bone lengths (shoulder to elbow and elbow to wrist I think) have a length ratio of 1:1.618, as do a bunch of other things.
Humans have quite a habit of looking for patterns in everything though, like that rock on mars that looked like a face and then NASA took another picture at a different time of day from a different angle and it looked like nothing.
"It is reported in all seriousness that de Moivre correctly predicted the day of his own death. Noting that he was sleeping 15 minutes longer each day, De Moivre surmised that he would die on the day he would sleep for 24 hours. A simple mathematical calculation quickly yielded the date, November 27, 1754. He did indeed pass away on that day."
Fram, you should talk to nap. He's in his own private math universe.
I was in there once. We picked up a couple of eigenvalues and went to see The Matrix.
I remember once the conversation had turned to big numbers and he threw out something and I just came right back with either g_64 or A(g_64,g_64), I can't remember which, but he was just like "Damn, you don't fuck around, do you?"
(I do not.)
But yeah, I get the feeling we're in about the same boat, finding really it fascinating but not being very good at actually working through it all.
Framling on
you're = you are
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
0
Options
Indie Winterdie KräheRudi Hurzlmeier (German, b. 1952)Registered Userregular
Fram, you should talk to nap. He's in his own private math universe.
I was in there once. We picked up a couple of eigenvalues and went to see The Matrix.
I remember once the conversation had turned to big numbers and he threw out something and I just came right back with either g_64 or A(g_64,g_64), I can't remember which, but he was just like "Damn, you don't fuck around, do you?"
(I do not.)
But yeah, I get the feeling we're in about the same boat, finding really it fascinating but not being very good at actually working through it all.
Sometimes I think Graham brought attention to that number just to spite the future. Seems to be the growing trend. Another 500 years from now, math and sadism will be considered the same fetish.
Larlar on
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Fram, you should talk to nap. He's in his own private math universe.
I was in there once. We picked up a couple of eigenvalues and went to see The Matrix.
I remember once the conversation had turned to big numbers and he threw out something and I just came right back with either g_64 or A(g_64,g_64), I can't remember which, but he was just like "Damn, you don't fuck around, do you?"
(I do not.)
But yeah, I get the feeling we're in about the same boat, finding really it fascinating but not being very good at actually working through it all.
Sometimes I think Graham brought attention to that number just to spite the future. Seems to be the growing trend. Another 500 years from now, math and sadism will be considered the same fetish.
At what point in the future does math become a fetish?
Posts
well in this case setting 0! to 0 just makes a useless branch of mathematics. the fork just isnt interesting
Any particular reason it was that one?
More like Linear Algebra
some form of that (without the labels) would be a classy way to do it
only smart people would get it
If you're going to go that route do a cool proof. We had presidents that thought this shit up during congressional hearings and had discussions about it.
How many congressman we have now do you think could understand this:
One of the good things that my teacher does is use the complicated solutions to stuff like 0! = 1, even if only a few people in the class get it. A lot better than teaching to the slowest students like most teachers at my high school do and ignoring the other end of the class. I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet here, being better at maths than the people at my school is really nothing.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
yeah, that's useful
SE++ Map Steam
I was at a physics bowl once in high school, and at the end, our team was in a three-way tie for 1st. They asked us about six tie-breaker questions, which all three teams kept getting right, when the moderator finally threw up his hands and said "Whoever knows the most digits of pi wins!"
I won $40 for everyone on my team.
Also, I submit that knot theory is the sexiest math.
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
Only one of them that I recall has actually gotten it, and it took them a good whole lunch period to figure it out.
On review, it appears I swapped a few digits
whoops
I've always wondered how accurate these lists were. Is there like a notepad file somewhere that has the actual listing of the numbers or what?
Hahaha, the last bit I know is ...327950, just barely enough to correct you.
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
"How many digits of Pi should you know?
3.14 - Enough for common man.
3.141591 - Enough for Scientists.
3.141592653........ - You're an asshole.
Yeah
I originally memorized it in syllabicly pleasing blocks, of three at first (six-two-six four-three-three eight-three-two seven-nine-five, etc)
832 795 1497 0288 169 39937 510 582
I swapped the positions of the 0288 and 1497 blocks, and 1497 should actually be 4197
hurray, wasted hours in math class
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?p=4818100#post4818100
x^2 - x^2 = x^2 - x^2
x ( x - x ) = (x + x) ( x - x)
x = 2x
I hope I didn't fuck it up
What is wrong with it :
Please explain as you would to a child or dog.
I made a TD for iphone and windows phone!
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
you lost me at tangarine
I made a TD for iphone and windows phone!
I was in there once. We picked up a couple of eigenvalues and went to see The Matrix.
Someone buys their panties from August Möbius.
what is up, sir
how goes being a preposterously attractive man
does it go well
I told a mathematician about the plot of PI once and boy did he laugh his ass off.
His simple reply was, "No."
I made a TD for iphone and windows phone!
Humans have quite a habit of looking for patterns in everything though, like that rock on mars that looked like a face and then NASA took another picture at a different time of day from a different angle and it looked like nothing.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
That's pretty awesome.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Then I suppose you're due for a mid-life crisis
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
I liked the part where they said they were looking for a 216-digit number and that they'd tried them all.
All
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
I remember once the conversation had turned to big numbers and he threw out something and I just came right back with either g_64 or A(g_64,g_64), I can't remember which, but he was just like "Damn, you don't fuck around, do you?"
(I do not.)
But yeah, I get the feeling we're in about the same boat, finding really it fascinating but not being very good at actually working through it all.
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
Sometimes I think Graham brought attention to that number just to spite the future. Seems to be the growing trend. Another 500 years from now, math and sadism will be considered the same fetish.
At what point in the future does math become a fetish?