Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

# MATH

## Posts

• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
i mean really 0! is just like parallel lines

there are certain basic things you have to assume

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

·
• The rock, the vulture, and the chain All that the proud can feel of painRegistered User regular
edited May 2008
My friend got the Pythagorean theorem tattooed on his arm earlier today.

·
• Registered User
edited May 2008
That's a pretty boring formula to get tattooed.

Any particular reason it was that one?

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
·
• too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
edited May 2008
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
what is the sexiest math

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

·
• The rock, the vulture, and the chain All that the proud can feel of painRegistered User regular
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.

·
• too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
edited May 2008

some form of that (without the labels) would be a classy way to do it

only smart people would get it

·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Tossrock wrote: »

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:

·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
i mean really 0! is just like parallel lines

there are certain basic things you have to assume

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.

·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
i know like the first 50 digits of pi

yeah, that's useful

·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
redfenix wrote: »
i know like the first 50 digits of pi

yeah, that's useful

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.

you're = you are

their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
I like how I have stumped countless math teachers with this one puzzle.

Only one of them that I recall has actually gotten it, and it took them a good whole lunch period to figure it out.

·
• too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
edited May 2008
Let's see...
Spoiler:

On review, it appears I swapped a few digits

whoops

·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Tossrock wrote: »
Let's see...
Spoiler:

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?

·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Tossrock wrote: »
Let's see...
Spoiler:

On review, it appears I swapped a few digits

whoops

Hahaha, the last bit I know is ...327950, just barely enough to correct you.

you're = you are

their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Where's that Toothpaste for dinner comic?

"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.

·
• too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
edited May 2008
Framling wrote: »
Tossrock wrote: »
Let's see...
Spoiler:

On review, it appears I swapped a few digits

whoops

Hahaha, the last bit I know is ...327950, just barely enough to correct you.

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

·
• too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
edited May 2008
Where's that Toothpaste for dinner comic?

"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.

·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
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

I hope I didn't fuck it up

What is wrong with it :
Spoiler:

·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
So, what the hell is calculus?

Please explain as you would to a child or dog.

http://www.botsnthings.com/
I made a TD for iphone and windows phone!

·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
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.

·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
WHOAAA

you lost me at tangarine

http://www.botsnthings.com/
I made a TD for iphone and windows phone!

·
• Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
edited May 2008
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.

·
• Frictionless Spinning The VoidRegistered User regular
edited May 2008
booo

·
• too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
edited May 2008
Was it diagonalizable?

·
• Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
edited May 2008
booo

Someone buys their panties from August MÃ¶bius.

·
• JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
edited May 2008
larlar

what is up, sir

how goes being a preposterously attractive man

does it go well

and I broke parole just to get to you
·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Hey wasn't someone explaining to me once that the whole "nature is full of patterns" thing is bullshit?

I told a mathematician about the plot of PI once and boy did he laugh his ass off.

http://www.botsnthings.com/
I made a TD for iphone and windows phone!

·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
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.

·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
De Moivres was a cunt.

·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
"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."

That's pretty awesome.

·
• JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
edited May 2008
the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy

and I broke parole just to get to you
·
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
shit im already sleeping for like 12 hours

·
• Negativity is Boring Cynicism is Cowardice Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Kovak wrote: »
shit im already sleeping for like 12 hours

Then I suppose you're due for a mid-life crisis

Visit http://www.cruzflores.com for all your Cruz Flores needs. Also listen to the podcast I do with Penguin Incarnate http://wgsgshow.podomatic.com
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
trentsteel wrote: »
Hey wasn't someone explaining to me once that the whole "nature is full of patterns" thing is bullshit?

I told a mathematician about the plot of PI once and boy did he laugh his ass off.

I liked the part where they said they were looking for a 216-digit number and that they'd tried them all.

All
Spoiler:
of them, I guess.

you're = you are

their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
·
• Negativity is Boring Cynicism is Cowardice Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Maybe they put in some overtime

Visit http://www.cruzflores.com for all your Cruz Flores needs. Also listen to the podcast I do with Penguin Incarnate http://wgsgshow.podomatic.com
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
·
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Larlar wrote: »
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.

you're = you are

their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
·
• Nattravnen Registered User regular
edited May 2008
This thread reminds me of someone
Spoiler:

·
• MY FINEST CREATION oh nevermind it's deadRegistered User regular
edited May 2008
what the fuck is that?

My Youtube My Steam SMITE IGN: TDOTCRFH4 come SMITE with me
·
• Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
edited May 2008
Framling wrote: »
Larlar wrote: »
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.

·
• The rock, the vulture, and the chain All that the proud can feel of painRegistered User regular
edited May 2008
Larlar wrote: »
Framling wrote: »
Larlar wrote: »
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?

·