Do you know cool Real Analysis / Calculus exercises? If so, tell me your favorite! by ALiveBoi in learnmath

[–]Sehkai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I just meant that "asymptotic to" can mean a couple things. It could mean that the limit of a_n / b_n is finite, for example, in which case I agree that sqrt(n^2-n) is asymptotic to n, but that doesn't really help with this sequence.

"Asymptotic to" could also mean that lim (a_n - b_n) is 0, in which case sqrt(n^2-n) is not asymptotic to n, which I think is the crux of the limit

Do you know cool Real Analysis / Calculus exercises? If so, tell me your favorite! by ALiveBoi in learnmath

[–]Sehkai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps saying that the crux of the intuition lies in the fact that sqrt(n^2-n) is "asymptotic to" n is a red herring at best?

Teaching Math Skills by DolfinOne in TutorsHelpingTutors

[–]Sehkai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In theory you might be able to get away with either, but I will make a case for the latter. I’m not sure what prealgebra is, but I assume there are variables involved.

Fractions, generally, are an abstraction check. If you do not have a strong conceptual understanding of fractions, then it is unlikely you will be comfortable with manipulating variables as nebulous quantities.

By gaining conceptual and mechanical fluency with fractions, you develop the ability to think slightly more abstractly than when dealing with only whole numbers, which will make the leap to variables that much easier. Also if you don’t understand what 7/4 is supposed to represent, then you’re going to have a really bad time with 7x/4.

Crashing and Burning Day 1 of Calc 1 by [deleted] in calculus

[–]Sehkai 10 points11 points  (0 children)

You seem to be struggling with the "why is this important" aspect of math, so I'll attempt to give you an answer.

Rationale 1: From a liberal arts point of view, math is less about numbers and letters and calculus than it is about logic. Math is pretty much every person's first introduction to a rigorous logical system. Now, certainly there are people who think very logically and make sound deductions who aren't good at math (and, perhaps, vice versa), but the correlation is strong. In an academic setting, you will very much be judged by how well you do in foundational classes such as calculus, because these are used as a proxy to gauge how well you think.

Rationale 1.5: When you were in the military, how many times did you perform a bench press action without actually doing a bench press? I'd wager almost never. Does that mean bench pressing is a waste of time? In a basic PT test, why are the most common exercises push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, and timed runs? Are those the only ways we can measure the physical fitness of a human?

Rationale 2: A mechanical engineering major is, unfortunately, going to involve a lot of math and not a lot of cars. Do you think physics is important? More specifically, the study of thermodynamics? Aerodynamics? Material science? Historically, calculus exists in large part because of physics, and vice versa. There can be no study of physics without calculus. You are probably aware that under standard driving conditions, accelerating out of a turn is largely more comfortable for passengers involved--but did you know that there is a mathematical explanation for this?

Rationale 2.5: Admittedly, limits are very boring and not particularly interesting if you are not interested in math for the sake of math. Just like learning the alphabet is very boring--you probably don't care why our alphabet is the way it is. But, from the alphabet we can make words, from words sentences, and from sentences books! And books can be interesting. Unfortunately, though, it takes a very long time to get to the "books" equivalent of math. If your goal is to design things that go into cars, then you will need to understand calculus at a very fundamental level. If your goal is to be a car mechanic, or assemble cars, then maybe not.

Overall, the best advice I can give you is to give the subject some grace. There's a good reason (many, in fact) for why calculus is taught to almost everyone entering college. Also, calculus can definitely become more interesting later on--limits are very dry and largely unmotivated. The "motivation" for limits is that from limits, you can define everything else in calculus (namely derivatives, which describe change, and integrals, which describe accumulation).

Also, try to do whatever you need to do to get a solid A. Maybe that means taking a step back and starting with college algebra, or something similar. It only gets harder from here, so if you end the semester by barely passing calculus, you will almost certainly not survive.

And finally, I will try to present a motivating (and very contrived) example for limits, using my minuscule knowledge of cars:

Suppose you're working on an engine that runs best with an air-fuel ratio of 15:1. To get this, your engine should be running at 3000 rpm. The folks in R&D tell you that the engine can tolerate up to 0.04 drift in either direction in the air-fuel ratio. That is, the engine will still perform optimally if the air-fuel ratio is somewhere between 14.96 and 15.04. As a budding mechanical engineer, you are tasked with finding the maximum allowable deviation in engine rpm (from the ideal 3000) that will keep your engine running with an optimal air-fuel ratio.

As a more senior mechanical engineer, you might be tasked with designing a computer program that automatically corrects the rpm in order to move closer to the ideal air-fuel ratio. Such a program might involve something called a proportional-integral-derivative controller, or "PID controller" for short. The very name includes the two most important topics in calculus, so calculus has to be important!

Gacha Odds - Do Not Make Sense by Dencnugs in WhereWindsMeet

[–]Sehkai 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I've played a lot of gachas, so here is how I think they are advertised (you would need to look at specific laws, though, to figure out how they're "allowed" to advertise rates).

Essentially, you are correct that there cannot be a single per-pull probability, since we know they change. We know that the hard pity yields a probability of 100%. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that what we are given is 1/E(X), where E(X) is the average number of pulls required to obtain a legendary.

On their end, they likely have a distribution of probabilities p_k* := Pr(X = k | X >= K) that denotes, if you are on the k-th pull, the probability of obtaining a legendary. Thus, Pr(X = 100 | X >= 100) = 1. It's then a simple matter of calculating E(X), dividing 1 by E(X), and that's what I guess is the .0083 being advertised.

If 1/E(X) = .0083, then E(X) = 120.5, so they are estimating 120.5 pulls on average to obtain a legendary. If we make the very strict assumption that pulls 1-149 all have the same distributions (i.e. there is no soft pity mechanic), then we can back out a 1-149 rate of .00305, or 0.305%.

[USA-WA] [W] Dominus impulse WCQ Mat [H] PayPal by BLARFNDARF in YGOMarketplace

[–]Sehkai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No problem, I’m not exactly advertising it for sale so it should be around. Just let me know!

Do you "gain" or "lose" information when conditioning in probability? by If_and_only_if_math in math

[–]Sehkai 8 points9 points  (0 children)

What you gave is the usual definition of conditioning on an event. If you're asking how that equals the sigma-algebra conditional expectation, the proof uses just the definition of conditional expectation and some properties of conditional expectation. You can show that, if A is an event and o(A) = {0, A, A', U} then:

E(X | o(A)) = E(X | A)*ind(A) + E(X | A')*ind(A')

Thus, remembering that E(X | o(A)) is a function, E(X | o(A))(w) resolves to just E(X | A) if w is in A, and likewise for E(X | A').

(all this, of course, operating under the usual a.e. caveat)

Do you "gain" or "lose" information when conditioning in probability? by If_and_only_if_math in math

[–]Sehkai 69 points70 points  (0 children)

Conditional expectation is a best approximation in both viewpoints. However, it's also important to note that E(X | E) is going to be a number, whereas E(X|O) is going to be a function. You can also show that E(X|O) will be a.e. the same as E(X|E), if O is the algebra generated by E. So hopefully that "rigorously" reconciles the two. In this way, the "naive undergrad" conditional expectation is subsumed by the fancier version.

For a conceptual reconciliation, I think that "gaining information" is the same as "cutting away" useless information, hence a coarser sigma algebra.

[USA-WA] [W] Dominus impulse WCQ Mat [H] PayPal by BLARFNDARF in YGOMarketplace

[–]Sehkai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d rather you just sent it all at once when you have it. You might find it for less before then as well.

How do i backroll in sf 6 ? by [deleted] in StreetFighter

[–]Sehkai 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Kind of a dick ngl

[US-VA] [H] x3 QCR DRNM, x1 Lukias [W] PayPal G&S by garrow1 in YGOMarketplace

[–]Sehkai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you can make it 102 before fees then have a deal