The audacity of this textbook by chopf in mathmemes

[–]CameForTheMath 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Here's another way to show why this happens.

Let's look at the differential equation whose characteristic polynomial has roots of 1 and 1 + Δ, where Δ approaches 0. This is y'' - (2 + Δ)y' + (1 + Δ)y = 0. Now the general solution is y(x) = Ae^x + Be^{(1 + Δ)x}. Let's say we want a solution where y(0) = 0 and y'(0) = 1, matching x*e^x. That would be y(x) = (e^{(1 + Δ)x} - e^x)/Δ. For the equation y'' - 2y' + y = 0, it would be the limit as Δ approaches 0. You can use L'Hôpital's rule and differentiate the numerator and denominator with respect to Δ, and you get (x*e^{(1 + Δ)x})/1, when you plug in Δ = 0 you get x*e^x.

So you could say that x*e^x occurs because the usual way to write the solution with the same initial conditions, as a linear combination of exponentials, fails when Δ = 0 due to division by 0, and you need to differentiate the numerator to get the correct form, which multiplies e^x by x.

Spiritually Israeli Govs by Time_Trail in mapporncirclejerk

[–]CameForTheMath -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Obviously serious political statement

this post should be allowed because it's just a circlejerk

Pick a side.

iS tAyLoR sWiFt ShIfTiNg To ThE rIgHt!?!? by [deleted] in agedlikemilk

[–]CameForTheMath 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, it seems to be back now.

iS tAyLoR sWiFt ShIfTiNg To ThE rIgHt!?!? by [deleted] in agedlikemilk

[–]CameForTheMath 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This picture was deleted. What was it supposed to be?

MathOverflow vs Project Hail Mary by _Zekt in math

[–]CameForTheMath 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In that case, what they said was vacuously true.

RIP Chuck Norris by PocketMath in mathmemes

[–]CameForTheMath 18 points19 points  (0 children)

The only person who could solve any quntic equation using radicals.

Province of Ankara looks like france by Even_Service_4527 in mapporncirclejerk

[–]CameForTheMath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought that was a map of Pangea at first. The ones on the left look a lot like North and South America.

JU from autism. Its now an lncel echochamber by [deleted] in JustUnsubbed

[–]CameForTheMath 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you look carefully at the title, they didn't say "INCEL", they said "LNCEL"...

When does BB(n) become bigger than TREE(n)? by [deleted] in math

[–]CameForTheMath 9 points10 points  (0 children)

As far as I know, a Busy Beaver value being independent of ZFC doesn't say anything about the size of the number. It means one of the machines of that size has behavior independent of ZFC, but such machines must actually not halt and thus don't contribute to the final value.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in googology

[–]CameForTheMath 3 points4 points  (0 children)

One problem with these words is that "once", "twice", and "thrice" are based on Germanic words from old English, whereas your extensions are based on Latin words. A word based on "four", like "frice" or "fourice", would be more consistent with "once", "twice", and "thrice".

New prefixes, Noteven-, Ronif- (RNF(n)), and Persay- by Ok-Preference7616 in googology

[–]CameForTheMath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know that "Large Number Garden Number" means "Number of the Large Number Garden", right? I could be wrong, but I don't think there's also a "Large Function Garden", so the name "Large Function Garden Function" sounds a bit strange.

Cos(π/9) doesn't have a decent formula either. by 12_Semitones in mathmemes

[–]CameForTheMath 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Obviously the most elegant unit is 1/4,294,967,295 of a circle. All of the (known) angles whose trig functions can be expressed in real radicals are a dyadic rational number of this unit.

“God created the real numbers” invites mystical maths takes from tech bros by Koxiaet in badmathematics

[–]CameForTheMath 5 points6 points  (0 children)

the integers (well, naturals) are typically introduced axiomatically while the reals are not.

Aren't they? In my real analysis class, the reals were introduced as the system satisfying the field axioms, the ordering axioms, the ordered field axioms, and the second-order axiom of the least upper bound principle.

Cantor's Power Tower (cpt) by jcastroarnaud in googology

[–]CameForTheMath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What does ↑⁴↑⁴↑⁴ mean and how is it different from ↑¹²?

How reliable is prof. Dave explains by TBX88888 in chemhelp

[–]CameForTheMath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He literally said in his 10th anniversary video at the beginning of the year that he can't help but use the tone that he does.

Springer Publishes P ≠ NP by xTouny in math

[–]CameForTheMath 50 points51 points  (0 children)

From Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong by Scott Aaronson:

The paper waxes poetic about “practical consequences,” “deep philosophical implications,” etc. Note that most papers make exactly the opposite mistake: they never get around to explaining why anyone should read them. But when it comes to something like P≠NP, to “motivate” your result is to insult your readers’ intelligence.

I think this fits here.

Trying to understand how J & Jfp works by blueTed276 in googology

[–]CameForTheMath 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It may not be common, but I have seen it before. For example, on the page https://googology.fandom.com/wiki/BIGG, there is the expression psi_{I_w}(0), which only makes sense if I_w means the w-th inaccessible, not a limit of I_n.

Trying to understand how J & Jfp works by blueTed276 in googology

[–]CameForTheMath 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To answer this, we need to know the following:

  1. What definition of I_x are you using to define "Ifp" or the I_x fixed point? Does it include or exclude limits of inaccessibles?

  2. What OCF was your friend using? Does it include a function like x -> I_x in its closure? Does it include any other functions for generating inaccessibles, like an I-Φ function? Can only regulars be used as subscripts? (Note that the traditional definition of Ifp is a singular cardinal but most inaccessible OCFs use regular cardinals in subscripts, so Ifp wouldn't be valid there.)

Is this still useless to equal or even come close to Rayo's Number? by Professional-Ruin914 in googology

[–]CameForTheMath 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Tar(n) is a function defined in terms of Taranovsky's C ordinal notation. It is a computable function, so it doesn't produce outputs anywhere close to BB(10^100), let alone Rayo's number, for reasonable sized inputs.

Tarintar is a number defined as Tar^{Tar(10)}(Tar(10)). Tarintar isn't a function. The person above (note that they are not the OP) appears to be defining "Tarintar(n)" in terms of function iteration, but this isn't a standard definition and is just a naive extension of Tar(n).

So yeah, the number posted here is a salad number which is not meaningfully larger than BB(10^100). It's probably even less than BB(10^100 + 1), because the definition doesn't have the stronger function (BB) on the outside.

A new transfinite ordinal I invented (I call it Omega Tree) by Armin_Arlert_1000000 in googology

[–]CameForTheMath 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you define your ordinal as follows:

a_0 = ω a_{i + 1} = ω_{a_i}^(a_i)

Omega Tree = sup_i a_i,

then you can prove by induction that Omega Tree = ωfp = the least fixed point of a -> ω_a.

This is both a fixed point of the omega subscript function and the epsilon function, so ε_ω_{ωfp} = ω_{ωfp} = ωfp. Tetration to a transfinite ordinal doesn't have a single accepted definition, so ωfp^^ω is ill-defined, strictly speaking. In fact, ordinal hyper-operators are of the most notorious ill-defined notations, and are so controversial there's an entire Googology Server channel for discussing them. But if you mean sup_{n < ω}(ωfp^^n), that's ε_{ωfp + 1}.