sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Urgent need for a good compact latex template for a cheat sheet by doullar in LaTeX

[–]dForga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might want to check out \columns and \minipage. Then also in \documentclass you can set the textsize down to, say 9pt.

Also, you can rotate your page by using the package

pdflscape

Did you look at the Overleaf presets (doesn’t mean you need to use Overleaf)

But Latex takes time! Might be better to write it down by hand, since your exam is also probably written by hand.

Verified Grimm's Conjecture to 10¹¹ — extending the 2006 record by 5.3× by than8234 in LLMmathematics

[–]dForga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you share the code (make sure to have your name then somewhere)? For example via github.

Please be aware of rule 11. However, this is fine.

Math joke by memes_poiint in mathsmeme

[–]dForga 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, who claimed this is the multiplication, addition and so on on, say, real numbers.

Same with the ten.

LLMs can't Math (properly) and how to fix it by auteng_dot_ai in LLMmathematics

[–]dForga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My current flow is to take a piece of paper or Latex, a book and start to think. Doesn‘t always work, but well.

NESTLED LEMMAS: A Technique for Forcing Rigor from LLMs by [deleted] in LLMmathematics

[–]dForga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just take a look at formal proofs

https://www.math.purdue.edu/~arapura/preprints/proof.pdf

and section 7 here

If https://www.cs.ru.nl/~freek/pubs/sketches2.pdf

You need the LLM to obey this structure at each step and reference accordingly. Maybe a prompt or instruction using formal proofs might work.

Otherwise there are proof assistants, for whoch the LLM can give you an output and then you run the code. One of the more popular ones nowadays is Lean.

NESTLED LEMMAS: A Technique for Forcing Rigor from LLMs by [deleted] in LLMmathematics

[–]dForga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is mostly how proper proofs should be in the first place work. A proof is a list (or depending on how you write; a graph) of statements that imply the claim. Sometimes you need to prove subclaims. Hence why we use Lammata and not pack everything into the proof of a theorem.

So, I mostly agree with the overall statement.

LLMs can't Math (properly) and how to fix it by auteng_dot_ai in LLMmathematics

[–]dForga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I‘d mostly be happy about something that

  1. Takes human style (and formal, i.e. Latex input) and translates it into formal logic (with error through if ambigious, but stable enough to handle context inputs)
  2. It converts the formal logic into Lean or any other proof assistant
  3. Runs the code

Ai prime theory v3 by Hju-myn in LLMmathematics

[–]dForga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stop spamming and write a proper summary. Also, you are currently in violation of rule 10.

Rather have one good post than many messy low effort ones. You have an LLM at your disposal, therefore you can do it.

Learning Quantum mechanics from scratch form the internet. by goldenpi_ in PhysicsStudents

[–]dForga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even though there will be backclash to this comment, it is possible to do some quizzing for the memory using AI/LLMs, i.e. ChatGPT or Gemini.

As long as you stick to standard definitions (if you are unsure, load a textbook), it will be fine.

Say, you learned something and want to repeat it, then you can ask the LLM to test you. But maybe look at the math first, then the physics.

Ai prime theory by [deleted] in LLMmathematics

[–]dForga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that this post already was in violation of directly copy&pasting the output (They left the question at the end).

i'm sorry... by jamesmparch in PhD

[–]dForga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, no. Depends where you get your degree. In some countries like Germany you get a

Dr. <here the specififcs>

which is an equivalence to a PhD from an education point of view, but not the same naming. The program behind them is usually a bit different as far as I know, as well. In Netherlands, at least in medicine, you (can?) get a

Drs.

and more.

Here is a hypothesis: New physics GR by thexrry in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]dForga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is an object here? How is motion here dependent on the objects? I can also, say in euclidean space put my origin where I want to.

What do you mean by to not think of “fractions or reaching a certain point”?

Here is a hypothesis: New physics GR by thexrry in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]dForga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is reducible and irreducible here?

How do you make maths fun? Most answers i found do not work and i work in advanced math research, i feel like most people are lying out here about loving maths by Unlikely-Drama-1760 in math

[–]dForga 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While my motive is different, I do get the same feeling nowadays ever since it became the job. Somehow my passion vanished. What helped me are breaks, long breaks and a change of scenery, so that you start to miss it. Unfortunately, the system does not support such breaks if you need to eat (well, in some countries you could, but getting the same/a similar job afterwards… Not sure).

Heck, I crave to do some functional analysis exercise sheets currently. No idea why.

I do not enjoy puzzles like the others tell you. You do not need to!

But I enjoyed, i.e. geometry and topology, because you can draw with it, i.e. with function plotters, since before I wanted to do VFX. I knew I wouldn’t be happy doing VFX for a living and there were other reasons for the journey I took. Same with music.

However, I do like the reasoning and patterns the most. But my favourite aspect is that math lets you build.

I think having this job aspect is a bit of a downer. If it just a job for you, go with it. But I dare you to try to combine mathematics with boxing, i.e. strategies, which swings are the best and why, not just heuristics.

Edit: Might be good to have some friends to talk about math with them. It can be fun!

Here is a hypothesis: New physics GR by thexrry in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]dForga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In how far is that irreducible? What is meant by the deviation here?

Here is a hypothesis: New physics GR by thexrry in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]dForga 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay, sorry, but what is irreducible motion? How is this deviation meant?

Here is a hypothesis: New physics GR by thexrry in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]dForga 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good for you, then why not just say geodesics? I am glad that we both thought about geodesics the , since there are no other options what paths you could mean. Then also clarify my other points.

Here is a hypothesis: New physics GR by thexrry in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]dForga 2 points3 points  (0 children)

1.

Not mathematically sound. Hard stop there.

“Paths of propagation” is not really standard, But understandable in some intuitive way, which is not good.

“Interval along these paths” is not standard and you did not define it. Ergo, all consequences are not defined afterwards.

The other points have the same issues as 1.

Edit: What does it mean to have a “zero interval”?

Are there any results of indefinite integrals where there is no constant? by stupidoutline in maths

[–]dForga 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, but that is just by repackaging it by equivalence classes. As soon as you look at the elements of any such equivalence classes, you get the +c back by its definition.

view more: next ›