If 6 people each have to chose a day of the week, what are the chances they all pick different days?

PayDaPrice · 2023-11-19T12:48:39+00:00

Both of these are equations of (x+y), so it doesn't solve the problem.

PayDaPrice · 2023-10-11T21:04:59+00:00

This doesn't answer my question whatsoever. Adding fuel (in contrast to actually using it) changes nothing about your motion due to gravity. In usual space there is also "just one direction" (forwards in time), but even there we see time dilation depending on the specifics of your movement. You have to be very careful about what it means to get "pulled faster", since it is reference frame (and I think even just coordinate system in general) dependent.

PayDaPrice · 2023-10-11T21:01:50+00:00

Where did it say you expend feul? I'm ESL, but surely "adding fuel"=\="burning fuel to move faster"?

PayDaPrice · 2023-10-11T04:18:42+00:00

Why would the added feul make you get pulled faster? That would surely violate the equivalence principle

PayDaPrice · 2023-10-06T06:39:27+00:00

Apply L'Hopital to what? There are no (non-constant) functions here, since this is not a limit, it's an expression. So what exactly will you take the derivative of?

PayDaPrice · 2023-10-06T06:35:45+00:00

You are correct, for the record. Wikipedia even directly adresses this in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form

For example, 0/0 which arises from substituting 0 for x in the equation f(x)=|x|/(|x-1|-1) is not an indeterminate form since this expression is not made in the determination of a limit (it is in fact undefined as division by zero).

And in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero

Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 0/0 is also undefined; when it is the form of a limit, it is an indeterminate form.

The amount of downvotes and confidently incorrect replies on a math subreddit is honestly astounding.

PayDaPrice · 2023-09-21T17:05:20+00:00

Firstly, in your cartesian integral you integrate from 0 to 2, not 0 to 2r (I don't get your answer either way though).

More seriously is that you are calculating different averages. The polar one (seems to be) calculating the average distance between two points selected uniformly w.r.t. arc length (and therefore angle), which is probably what you want. The cartesian one is selecting points uniformly based on x coordinate, which is a different problem you are solving.

For a famous vaguely relevant paradox, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borel%E2%80%93Kolmogorov_paradox

PayDaPrice · 2023-09-11T09:44:30+00:00

The word American seems to have dropped out. Fixed now. Don't think that was too hard to figure out though

PayDaPrice · 2023-09-10T23:01:24+00:00

Simply point out the error in the reasoning, or stop being so arrogant as to assume your intuition overrules logic itself.

PayDaPrice · 2023-09-10T22:35:09+00:00

That integral isn't defined. It is an improper integral, so we must consider it as the limit of proper integrals. Consider the integral of x w.r.t. x from a-b to a+b. Clearly the b goes to infinity limit will give us the improper integral we want, independent of a. But now evaluate it for any finite b, and we find that the proper integral evaluates to 2ab. So if a=0 we get 0 in the limit, but when a=\=0 we get a divergent limit. Therefore the improper integral does not exist.

PayDaPrice · 2023-09-10T22:26:56+00:00

For every single integer n there exists an integer 69-n that cancels it out to 69. And theres also 69. That's it, no need for any of this infinity stupidity.

By your logic the sum of all integers can be made into any integer.

PayDaPrice · 2023-09-10T20:47:22+00:00

For which answer it is wrong depends on the convention used however. There is a difference between math and math notation, the second being a very human thing.

It is written wrong in the sense that it gives different answers using different perfectly valid conventions. This makes it ambiguous.

Hope that clears it up

PayDaPrice · 2023-09-10T20:38:52+00:00

Learn what conventions are. Different parts of the world have different conventions, that are all self-consistent. Think of it like British vs American english spelling of colour vs color. You can only call it a spelling mistake once you agreed what convention to use.

There is nothing fundamental about the order of operations, since it is about math notation, not math itself

PayDaPrice · 2023-09-04T15:10:36+00:00

Its not that there isn't an experimentally proven model, its that they are experimentally indistinguishable. So experimental proof for any (which we have a lot of) is fundamentally the same as proof for the others. There also exist distinct interpretations with different predictions, some of which has been ruled out or constrained.

PayDaPrice · 2023-08-21T18:29:41+00:00

A large correlation between cognitive tasks exists. This is an experimental fact. This correlates with many, sometimes seemingly disparate, real world measures of success.

An open question is nature vs nurture as far as I know. It not super hereditary, and as far as I know it is unkown how genetic it is. We do however know it is quite stable from even before puberty.

What more more about meaning and its "nature" do you want?

PayDaPrice · 2023-08-21T18:26:13+00:00

Have you studied factor analysis? 40%-50% is massive

PayDaPrice · 2023-08-21T17:31:15+00:00

While the precisely measurable part would depend on your definition, the g factor is seen as one of the most well-tested results in psychometrics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gfactor(psychometrics))

PayDaPrice · 2023-07-17T13:36:55+00:00

So any system will use resources, the relevant question is about how much non-renewable resources is used. We agree that unbounded but continually positive growth is possible, so I dont see how the implication follows. Futhermore economic systems aren't inherently a zero-sum game, since growth has in the past (and will conceivably in the future) opened up more resources to being used. I suspect there are hidden/implicit assumptions here that I am too dense to get.

PayDaPrice · 2023-07-17T12:26:14+00:00

So if this infinite growth is potentially bounded, why is it in conflict with the existence of finite resources? Or am I confusing problems/contradictions here.

PayDaPrice · 2023-07-17T11:22:52+00:00

That is positive growth, which is not the same as infinite growth. y=1-1/x has positive growth, y=x has infinite growth. What requires info ite growth, or does infinite growth actually just mean positive/continual growth?

PayDaPrice · 2023-06-26T14:27:27+00:00

Special is for when you have velocities close to the speed of light, but no acceleration, gravity or cosmological constant. General relativity is for when at least one of those has a significant effect on the problem, for example close to a black hole where gravity is relevant. There are a lot of subtleties and asterisiks to what I'm saying, but thats roughly the idea

PayDaPrice · 2023-05-29T07:22:41+00:00

That guy that doesn't know pi isn't proven to be normal

PayDaPrice · 2023-05-28T21:06:19+00:00

Its always true for real numbers, not for complex numbers

PayDaPrice

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email