cars posted:While these reports ended up being later confirmed by video evidence, one particular character implicated in these reports, Chunky Kong from Donkey Kong 64, completely eluded any sort of video or photographic evidence. Despite the lack of evidence, people initially generally believed this report, as it came from multiple independent sources, that even fully described his effect as "slamming the ground to make bananas fall from the sky".
same
tears posted:anyone know a good introduction to physics?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x1lo-O_kpZGk8
These are supposed to be good, although you’ll probably have to learn the math elsewhere as he doesn’t go to in depth on pure mathematics.
Parenti posted:my friend studying physics says they're not good as an introduction
I didn' study physics but I did take a few courses in it in college.
I wouldn't recommend the books normally to someone looking to begin studying physics but I know tears is smart and has a science background. Other than those books idk what's good
littlegreenpills posted:tears posted:anyone know a good introduction to physics?
Susskind's lecture series is amazing if you want to do a hard grind from zero to deeper understanding of the mathematical toolbox with minimal handwaving
the book is on libgen as well
wOW repost. Although my link didn’t embed the video so I guess it’s my fault
Belphegor posted:The Feynman Lectures
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics
this looks cool to get into but it think its too much for me, do you have somethign that is the same, but with less?
Edited by tears ()
tears posted:i would prefer a quality understanding of basic physics to a level where i would feel confident starting an undergraduate course (im not doing this), and to a thoroughness that i could explain these concepts to others confidently, rather than learning calculus for fun; once i have that maybe i will learn more, maybe not; also no youtubes, sorry
If you don't want to do math and you're okay with a textbook format you might like Conceptual Physics.
wuyong posted:If you don't want to do math and you're okay with a textbook format you might like Conceptual Physics.
this is what im looking for ,thanks
chemistry equivilent ?
tears posted:wuyong posted:If you don't want to do math and you're okay with a textbook format you might like Conceptual Physics.
this is what im looking for ,thanks
chemistry equivilent ?
There's a few options here https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/math---science/chemistry/chemistry/general-education/liberal-arts-chemistry.html
Petrol posted:why learn lesser science like physics or chemistry when u already know the immortal science
Idk Marx did it, and if u emulate him then you're doing it right, this is why I just ordered the collected works of Balzac off Amazon for $500
dimashq posted:Marx did it, and if u emulate him then you're doing it right,
brb, dunking on feuerbach
dimashq posted:Marx did it
in his final years he even went so far as to try to revolutionize it
Calculus: A Marxist Approach
Karl Marx and the Foundations of Differential Calculus (no paywall)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/mathematical-manuscripts/
tldr: marx was dissatisfied with the lack of rigor in the foundations of calc in his period (and apparently hadn't caught wind of what cauchy/weierstrass got up to?) so he made his own attempt at an algebraic foundation
these days mostly interesting as a historical footnote
Edited by Constantignoble ()
Caesura109 posted:is andrew kliman an ultraleftist? his criticisms of the standard "neoliberal" explanation of our current state of affairs and accusations of class collaborationism between socialist parties and capital sounds like it could either swing maoist or left communist
definitely not a Maoist, and ultraleftist doesn't quite hit the mark.
he's a Marxist Humanist, a follower of Raya Dunayevskaya, who was a Hegelian-Marxist and one of the big proponents of the "Engels didn't understand Marx" branch of Western Marxism, a theory that I've always admired just for its sheer, ridiculous audacity
Constantignoble posted:
slipdisco posted:
i only recognize 3/4 of those; alas, where calculus is concerned, i have not Used It and thus i have Losed It
i'm rereading that H. Kennedy paper from my last post (the second link)
While Marx' analysis of the derivative and differential had no immediate effect on the historical development of mathematics, Engels' claim that Marx made "independent discoveries" is certainly justified. It is interesting to note that Marx's operational definition of the differential anticipated 20th century developments in mathematics, and there is another aspect of the differential, that seems to have been seen by Marx, that has become a standard part of modern textbooks -- the concept of the differential as the principal part of an increment.
Two things stand out in this presentation of Marx. One is his total rejection of the concept of the derivative as a ratio of infinitesimals. The other is his view that he is analysing a dialectical process, seen especially as a “negation of the negation.”
...
Indeed, Lombardo Radice has concluded: "More generally, there is no doubt that Marx gave so much attention and so much effort of thought in the last years of his life to the foundations of differential calculus because he found in it a decisive argument against a metaphysical interpretation of the dialectical law of the negation of the negation" [Lombardo Radice 1972, 2751. As Marx himself wrote: "here as everywhere it is important to strip the veil of secrecy from science" [Marx 1968, 1921.]
i ought to scope out the manuscripts themselves one of these days
ed: hell, they're not even as long as i was led to believe. i was intimidated by the "1000 manuscript pages" talk, but the new park publications copy on MIA works out to like 200 before the supplemental materials
Edited by Constantignoble ()
apropos
Lombardo Radice has concluded: "More generally, there is no doubt that Marx gave so much attention and so much effort of thought in the last years of his life to the foundations of differential calculus because he found in it a decisive argument against a metaphysical interpretation of the dialectical law of the negation of the negation". As Marx himself wrote: "here as everywhere it is important to strip the veil of secrecy from science"
iono maybe engels and marx's discussion might seem metaphysical to us today but i find it quite elegant and instructive. from the kennedy paper,
Thus, while Engels was willing to accept the view of dy/dx as a ratio of infinitely small quantities, for Marx the differentiation was completed only when Ax and Ay became zero. Marx would probably have been amused by Berkeley's jibe at Newton's fluxions as "ghosts of departed quantities." He certainly would have appreciated the verses in Samuel Butler's mock romance Hudibras,first published in 1663, from which (according to Wolfgang Breidert ) Berkeley's expression was derived: "He could reduce all things to Acts/ And knew their Natures by Abstracts,/ Where Entity and Quiddity,/ The Ghosts of defunct Bodies, flie"
...two aspects of Marx' view of the differential and the derivative that have been pointed out by D. J. Struik: "his insistence on the operational character of the differential and on his search for the exact moment where the calculus springs from the underlying algebra as a new doctrine".
...algebraic in Marx' sense {means} that no differential symbols appear there, i.e. a real process has taken place that results in the derivative of the original function. But on the left side we have 0/0 or dy/dx, i.e. operational symbols. Thus Marx distinguishes the two sides of the equation: the left is the symbolic and the right is the algebraic. Viewing a mathematically variable magnitude as a reflection of a varying natural magnitude, we may investigate it by the 'algebraic' differentiation process that takes place on the right side of the equation. But this process is reflected symbolically on the left side of the equation and may in turn be investigated by the development of a calculus of those symbols. Thus the initiative, so to speak, passes from the right side of the equation to the left - in a'"reversal of the method."
Marx writes {about du & dz in y=uz ⇒ dy/dx = u(du/dx)+z(dz/dx)}: "They have one-sidedly come into the world, shadow figures without bodies to cast them, symbolic differential coefficients without real differential coefficients, i,e, without corresponding equivalent 'derivatives'. The symbolic differential coefficient has become an independent starting point, whose real equivalent has first to be found. The initiative has been moved from the right hand pole, the algebraic, to the left hand one, the symbolic. With this, however, the differential calculus appears also as a specific kind of computation, operating already independently on its own territory. Its starting points du/dx, dz/dx are mathematical quantities which belong exclusively to this calculus and characterize it. And this reversal of the method resulted here from the algebraic differentiation of uz. The algebraic method changes automatically into its opposite, the differential method."
i especially love engels' subconscious,
The thing has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day, but last week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt — buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them.
this but the chap is sonic
cars posted:verizon-tumblr sports got real mad today, because fox shot a few minutes poking around stalin's dacha in between world cup coverage but failed to dedicate 90% of their "check out this pool table" tourism segment to explaining that russians are rapist barbarians and stalin personally killed nine hundred trillion maidan grandmas with a croquet mallet in the backyard
It’s hard to have a conversation about Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin without using the world “murderer.”