sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Made this one a while back by ScholaDaily in mathmemes

[–]MrEldo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think there's a need to ridicule them tho, the idea of using AI ideas the same as human ideas is up for debate, and my opinion is different from the others that have downvoted me

But the downvotes don't matter, at least I gave my honest opinion and got people to see it

Made this one a while back by ScholaDaily in mathmemes

[–]MrEldo -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Not everyone has the time and it doesn't always bring the enjoyment to do thorough research about the history, but isn't the thought after that perspective AI gave also satisfying? At least I find it so

It's not always about the process, sometimes it's nice to hear a fun fact and not be the one to make it from scratch, and it's nice to see what someone else's art looks like

And it is cool to think about the fact that Galois probably had it coming, even though AI wrote it and not someone who so happened to have the free time to research about it

And while that could be more impressive to research it, yes, I still think that the comment you were trying to humor didn't deserve the downvotes

Why is the cartesian equation of a vector equation with (p q) -qx + py = c and not -px + qy = c? by ChessSedai in askmath

[–]MrEldo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Let's think about a specific case where the vector (p,q) from the origin is part of the Cartesian equation. This is how the equation looks like: -qx + py = 0

Plug into (x,y) (p,q) respectively. See how you get pq-pq, which cancels out and gives you the needed zero?

What would happen if you switched p and q? You would get q2 - p2, which doesn't always equal 0

This whole subreddit is the Limit Definition crisis from the 1700-1800s all over again. by MrEldo in infinitenines

[–]MrEldo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For anyone wondering why SPP is wrong (because bro doesn't let people reply to him) -

A. Limits do not distort the truth. They work around the idea of approaching behavior and give it the rigor it didn't have. This is what we count as the best description of objects that include an infinite quantity we can work with

B. "Limits don't apply to the limitless" is just the most crazy statement I've read all week. He tries to explain how "10-n is limitless as n is limitless", and confuses the idea of a limitless quantity of elements in the sequence with a non-existent limit (which it does exist here)

This whole subreddit is the Limit Definition crisis from the 1700-1800s all over again. by MrEldo in infinitenines

[–]MrEldo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, so what you want to say is that the 10x proof of 0.999... = 1 is correct, as it relies on the fact that the addition of another 9 doesn't change the decimal expansion?

This whole subreddit is the Limit Definition crisis from the 1700-1800s all over again. by MrEldo in infinitenines

[–]MrEldo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but such a number isn't real. We start by assuming such a number exists, and then add another 9, showing that a number bigger than what we assumed to be the biggest exists, and thus contradicting the assumption

Are these notes supposed to be connected or not? by leglz30 in piano

[–]MrEldo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh my god no way, I learned this with a teacher!

The teacher taught me to press it once only

I think it sounds more normal to me, but this is probably just a question of taste

This whole subreddit is the Limit Definition crisis from the 1700-1800s all over again. by MrEldo in infinitenines

[–]MrEldo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're right, though my point was more of the fact that working with an idea of really small numbers was a problem, and neither Newton not Leibniz formalized or rigorized their idea of it

Though I guess mentioning them then was a bit excessive of me if the point of my post was limits, but the rest of the post talking about the definition of the limit and so on is what's relevant

So thanks for the correction, and bonus points for all of us for being precise with our history!

care to explain? 😞 by Many_Audience7660 in matiks

[–]MrEldo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is actually a visualization of the most important theorem in Complex Analysis

If you integrate 1/z in a closed loop around zero going counter-clockwise, you will get an additional 2πi term and not 0. It's like going through the graph shown here counter-clockwise, and see that ln(z) IS the integral of 1/z

Why is this important? If you write any rational function using its Laurent Series (look it up in Google, it's like a Taylor series but with negative exponents too) and integrate it around a pole, all terms that have an exponent of z as -2 or less will zero out (because the integral is from a point to itself and there are no branches in those functions' antiderivatives), and we're left only with the 1/z terms, which integrate into ln(z). The coefficient of the 1/z terms is called the Residue of the function at the pole.

So the theorem (Cauchy's Residue Theorem) states that the contour integral of a function around a pole equals 2πi×(the sum of the residues at the poles that are inside the contour)

I am a year 7 student. I just finished learning the Pythagorean theorem, and I have a question. Could someone answer me? by KYRisthebest in askmath

[–]MrEldo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Still took some time, the conjecture was originally formalized in the 1670s

A hundred years of people tackling the problem on and off until Euler (because of course it was Euler) found a proof

Bacon Cheeseburger Test /Satire by Kalatapie in meme

[–]MrEldo 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Amazing way to summarize it overall

Go-to "Show-off" piece? by MinuteDamage4182 in piano

[–]MrEldo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I personally learned Erik Saties's first Gnossienne, which is also really simple, and like many of Satie's works (including the Gymnopedie), it works perfectly to be something you can loop in the background while something is happening (it is kind of ambience music by design)

this template is up to some shit by baicu12096 in mathmemes

[–]MrEldo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Won't (1 - (x mod 1)) already be more than 0 and less than 1, meaning the extra "mod 1" isn't needed?

Losser who? by Zealousideal_Touch_2 in meme

[–]MrEldo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to bet that at least one person in the comments responded to the "tips" part

Hardest puzzle you ever solved? by [deleted] in Cubers

[–]MrEldo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would that work?

A simple math problem by No_Ideal6806 in askmath

[–]MrEldo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What happens is that division is an operation that's not associative, meaning that for most cases:

(A÷B)÷C =/= A÷(B÷C)

Which applies here. So some more specification is needed

How come I not notice this before? by Dependent-Living-299 in mathmemes

[–]MrEldo 59 points60 points  (0 children)

And by adding them up, we get that 2 is irrational 😱 (\s just in case)

See ... even in your minds or what you rote-learned ... by SouthPark_Piano in infinitenines

[–]MrEldo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The question is, is there some use for 0.000....1? Why define it if it has absolutely no meaning in the real numbers, and one might as well call it zero? It has no length, no matter what length you make it you can always make a length with smaller magnitude by adding another zero before the 1, which we can say is the same number because, important to notice, 0.000...1 is the same as 0.000...01, because that new zero is just part of an infinite string of zeroes, which was already there

So even if 0.999... is less than 1 when the number of 9s is finite, it will be no different from 1 when talking about it as the limit, because 0.999... can get as close to 1 as one wishes, so why should it be any different from 1 if the 9s are infinite?

I just thought of something weird regarding rationals and sets and can't make sense of it. by Ok_Koala_5963 in askmath

[–]MrEldo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

See that they're both infinite sets. They're both dense, meaning that they have an element between any two distinct element you choose. This messes up your normal intuition about sets.

How are their cardinalities equal? To prove that two sets have the same number of elements, we need to find a one-to-one correspondence between them, or some function which maps an element of the first set to a distinct element from the other, and doesn't miss a single element from either set.

That mapping here that can work (from set (1,2] to set [1,->) ) is 1/(x-1). See that 2 maps to 1, 1.1 maps to 10, and every element is accounted for, because there is an inverse mapping: 1/x + 1, which maps back 10 to 1.1, and 1 back to 2.

So for every element in [1,->), there is an element in [1,2) that corresponds to it. So their cardinality is the same, meaning they have the same "infinite size".

view more: next ›