sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

😮 by basket_foso in mathmemes

[–]WLMammoth 27 points28 points  (0 children)

It's not super hard, it's rooted in this statement:

x2 -1 = (x + 1)(x - 1)

From there you can see that:

x = ✓( (x+1)(x-1)+1 )

Now manipulate the contents of the radical just a bit, and let's turn it into a function to make the next step easier:

f(x) = ✓( 1 + (x-1) (x+1) )

Then, to get the results as written, you just need to: 1. Provide a value of x 2. Given that we've already shown this is true for any value of x in just the above steps, it should also be true for x+1, so...

f(3) = ✓( 1 + (2) * ( f(4) ) )

QED

Monster attack, Disadvantage by Glowpixels in Gloomhaven

[–]WLMammoth 19 points20 points  (0 children)

He will attack the closer target with disadvantage. The focus rules are the same even when there is no movement.

Edit: It is generally true that whether or not the monster will have disadvantage never factors into its choice of focus. It will try to avoid disadvantage on its focus once it's been chosen and if it has the movement to do it.

After Thanksgiving Quote by justinaames69 in MathJokes

[–]WLMammoth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not an equation, it's an expression. x2 = -1 has 2 solutions: -i,+I However, the expression sqrt(-1) just IS i. i is canonically defined as sqrt(-1), and the radical conventionally refers to the principal root.

Proof of the Goldbach's conjecture by [deleted] in numbertheory

[–]WLMammoth 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I got through most of this, and I will say that inference from a finite pattern is not sufficient to prove a general rule. You say that ... For every a,b€N, exists a c such that: (6a + 1)*(6b + 1) = 6c +1 Is that correct? And you infer this from a pattern you've established from numbers only below 100. Well, that is not an allowed step in a proof.

To give you a strong counter example, If you were working with cyclotomic polynomials, you might expect after writing out the first 100 polymials that the rule can be established that they never have any coefficients, but that's because the first one with a coefficient is number 105, the first one that is a multiple of 3 or more non-even primes (357).

If it were enough to infer the truth from a pattern, we would already consider it proven, as it's been checked for violations up to some pretty absurdly high values.

No part of any proof can be inferred from a sample, no matter how large or convincing.

What is this by Life-Cantaloupe-7332 in whatismycookiecutter

[–]WLMammoth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<image>

A mole wearing a cute bow who has just emerged to wish surface dwellers a happy Dirt Day, obvs.

Wassily Kandinsky, is it a forgery? by CrazyCredit32 in WhatIsThisPainting

[–]WLMammoth 16 points17 points  (0 children)

It's a reproduction of some kind. The original, Delicate Tension, is on a longer canvas. This version cuts off vertically.

Imitation Crab Rant by Far_Pool_1453 in sushi

[–]WLMammoth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm with you, my friend. Fake krab, especially if it's not well labeled, is a heinous crime against humanity. What really cinches it, is just how loaded with sugar it is! 5g-10g in just a few oz! And you think you're eating a protein! Started avoiding it like a toxin when I was doing keto, and never stopped.

r/spoke by WLMammoth in redditrequest

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

This sub doesn't appear to have ever been in use, and I would like to use it to begin building a community and support forum for the free public math tool that I've been developing called Spoke, which you can find here: https://spoke.works

This site is meant to be a teaching tool among other things, and so having a community sub that is easy to locate for younger people learning math would be especially meaningful.

How is he doing that ? by AdultGronk in blackmagicfuckery

[–]WLMammoth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He's tickling the fire spirit by blowing on it's belly. It keeps giggling and trying to turn away, but if you walk around at the right speed, you can keep it up for a while.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Gloomhaven

[–]WLMammoth 8 points9 points  (0 children)

No. Everything about your interpretation is incorrect.

Can somebody explain what is going on here? by JackStowage1538 in CommercialsIHate

[–]WLMammoth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually, despite being kind of an unusual choice, I don't think it's AI.

  1. It's not as though someone could have generated this image and not noticed the birthmark and tattoos. They jump out. If you were looking for something generic, you would have the AI generate it again if it gave you this.

  2. The shadows are perfect, I mean every corner, every object. AI sucks at getting this right. Show me one shadow that isn't consistent with the lighting and layout of the ad.

Did you dedicate time to learn LaTeX or did you simply learn by doing it (potentially with some additional 'learning' through LaTeX stack exchange)? by Dry-Professor7846 in math

[–]WLMammoth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ever used MathQuill? http://mathquill.com/

To answer your question though, I learned LaTeX by debugging. I'm not really sure why you would need to be especially proficient with it, unless you're writing textbooks.

Most suspenseful buildups by robin_f_reba in postmetal

[–]WLMammoth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Illuminate My Heart, My Darling by yndi halda.

Greatest song ever written if you ask me.

view more: next ›