#121
yeah it doesnt really answer the question but i appreciate the effort
#122
i wish i had an irl math/coding study buddy. toyotathon you still wanna team up?
#123
[account deactivated]
#124

tears posted:

yeah it doesnt really answer the question but i appreciate the effort


This is really something that many serious physicists have struggled with. "Is the wavefunction real?" is a question that has seen a decent amount of back and forth over the years by physicists studying quantum phenomena

#125

toyotathon posted:

yup let's do visual group theory. should i catch up to ch 6?


sounds good to me

#126
[account deactivated]
#127
Yep! That actually something that can be made totally rigorous and very general, its called a partial order
#128
[account deactivated]
#129
Im not sure!
#130
I'm working through Linear Algebra by Friedberg
#131
[account deactivated]
#132
https://www.quantamagazine.org/amateur-mathematician-finds-smallest-universal-cover-20181115/

Always inspiring to see an independent researcher come up with something new.

In this case the 'amateur' has a PHD in physics but it still gives me hope lol
#133
[account deactivated]
#134
fine ill learn your stupid maths





#135
[account deactivated]
#136
cant find weed on the periodic table
#137
Might as well call this the pretty note taking thread
#138
Yeah for real these make my notebooks look like dog trash
#139
#140
beautiful notes are very important for a Marxist. just as important: ugly notes, memorizing entire tables of grain production figures and thinking about them while squinting and nodding
#141
[account deactivated]
#142
i've been focusing on programming but wanna get back to the math soon
#143
[account deactivated]
#144
yeah, it's slow but steady. I'm trying to do every problem. So far they are all doable, the main prerequisite has been calculus.

It's more rigorous/theoretical than the type of linear algebra I learned in Uni, which was very much applied, whereas Friedberg covers generalized vector spaces, not just the 'spatial' ones in R^n

I'm going to go do some right now!
#145
i've been reading about the replicability crisis in social sciences (only one problem of an obvious many). on the one hand, so-called experts are saying that this is not a problem of a blind faith in p-values, but other so-called experts are saying that p-values can no longer be reliably used in research. came across bayesian statistics, and am wondering if anyone has any thoughts/experience about this approach to research or its usefulness in general? is this just another attempt to rationalize poor methods?
#146
[account deactivated]
#147

toyotathon posted:

another's about spheres. if you're standing on a sphere, holding a compass facing forward, is it possible to walk a path on the sphere and come back to where you started, w/o the compass doing a full rotation, either its needle, or spinning around its N/S axis, or E/W axis?


just put your finger on the needle as you walk around

#148

toyotathon posted:

had a math-specific question, well 2.

first is about curvature on a 2D surface. if you take the set of normal vectors at every point on a 2D surface (call it A), and multiply them by a scalar r, it makes a new surface (call it B). could you find the radius of curvature of A, by looking at where B intersects itself, for a given r? if you look at my old exact constraint notes maybe you can see what i'm getting at, and why...



why would B necessarily intersect with itself? it sounds like you're just talking about rescaling the surface A by r, which wouldnt by itself introduce any sort of self-intersections that werent in A to begin with.

another's about spheres. if you're standing on a sphere, holding a compass facing forward, is it possible to walk a path on the sphere and come back to where you started, w/o the compass doing a full rotation, either its needle, or spinning around its N/S axis, or E/W axis?


theres nothing stopping you from holding the compass still, facing the same direction, while you walk in a very small circle. if you want to mark a point on the compass and align that with your velocity then you will always make a full rotation.

#149
[account deactivated]
#150
I see what you mean now but I think you need to define the surface A more narrowly than 'any given 2-manifold'.

Like c-man says, B is not guaranteed to have intersections.

On which 'side' do we draw the blades of grass? The top or the bottom?

Also, imagine you have an elliptical indent. Which radius are we interested in, the minor one or the major one? What would the 'correct' radius of curvature be, as you call it?

#151
[account deactivated]
#152
[account deactivated]
#153
if matter can become conscious then presumably theres conscious anti-matter too, right? anyone?
#154
im doing some crystalisation experiments, what sort of crystals does NaHCO3 produce compared to Na2CO3? chemistry at home is fun
#155
if you need more Na2CO3 i have 14 tons of it just laying around atm. plz bring your own truck and pallet jack
#156
i do not, but thanks!
#157
np the offer will probably stand for quite some time tho
#158
on a side note i am reading earnest rutherfords key papers at the moment since i figured if im gonna do this im going to do it properly and get to the bottom of it experimentally and omg i am already in love, dudes just like "A deep hole was cut in a thick lead plate and partly filled with uranium oxide. A small tourmaline covered the opening. Another small tourmaline was cut in two and placed on top of the first, so that in one half of the opening the tourmalines were crossed and in the other half uncrossed. The tourmalines were very good optically. The photographic plate was supported 1 to 3 mm. above the tourmalines. The plate was exposed four days, and on developing a black circle showed up on the plate, but in not one of the photographs could the slightest difference in the intensity be observed." hence no polarisation; this is the right way to learn
#159
that's a cool bird
#160

tears posted:

maths is for harry potter nerds



life finds a way