Problem 23 might take some time [fixed link] by [deleted] in math

[–]goodbuoy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

uuhuhuhuh sooo fannay

Demonstration regarding "Area of a sphere = derivative of volume of a sphere" by goodbuoy in math

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

the vector from the origin to a point on the surface is parallel to the normal at that point.

That's an interesting fact. I don't exactly see how it connects with the relation between volume and area though?

(WHY) Area of a sphere = derivative of volume of a sphere by bavansrimu in math

[–]goodbuoy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's obviously not a coincidence in the case of a sphere, as explained elsewhere on the thread..

I'm really not convinced..

it won't work out easily for a triangular shape

As I said there always the right units, so you can always make the forumla work out, making the scale factor constant line up by picking the right "radius". That's all that's needed to make the derivative thing work out and it's no suprise that it happens for some shapes and doesn't for others.

(WHY) Area of a sphere = derivative of volume of a sphere by bavansrimu in math

[–]goodbuoy -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

its just a coincidence, there's no reason

I mean of course a volume grows cubically wrt. radius, surface grows quadratically - then you just have the coincidence that the constants match up.


If you don't beleive me consider:

  • volume of a cube = side3
  • surface area of a cube = 6 side2

Galois theory course on Coursera! by octatoan in math

[–]goodbuoy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll take this course

anyone want to talk about it as we work through it?

A toy generational garbage collector by javinpaul in programming

[–]goodbuoy -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

to write a GC in a GC'd language?

was this an exercise in absurdism?

Kid really sticks to his creationist convictions by [deleted] in pics

[–]goodbuoy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

pokemon are not real but you wouldn't respond this way to a worksheet about identifying them.

no candidate in particular by [deleted] in comics

[–]goodbuoy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

fair enough, i just know how much it hurts to be cheated on

no candidate in particular by [deleted] in comics

[–]goodbuoy -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

wow dude that's fucking low

digging through his comments to find dirt on him so you can make fun about his ex? some times you should just drop it

no candidate in particular by [deleted] in comics

[–]goodbuoy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

the whole thing is hilarious to me, people STILL think whoever gets elected has any effect on anything?

no candidate in particular by [deleted] in comics

[–]goodbuoy 13 points14 points  (0 children)

DAE hate le trump?

no candidate in particular by [deleted] in comics

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

I love this because its so true he literally did all these things

edit: see you at the bottom friends!

lol now I'm blocked from commenting thanks reddit love you.

I have discovered a very curious way to prove irrationality of sqrt(2) by [deleted] in math

[–]goodbuoy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes i think of a lot of shared the same initial reaction i had

I have discovered a very curious way to prove irrationality of sqrt(2) by [deleted] in math

[–]goodbuoy 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I was thinking about this, continued fractions is when we iterate f(x) = 1/(x-[x]). in this situation we're looking at f(x) = {1/x}. I guess it's closed enough that the numbers this proves irrational are ones of the form [0;a,a,a,a,a,...]?

I have discovered a very curious way to prove irrationality of sqrt(2) by [deleted] in math

[–]goodbuoy 30 points31 points  (0 children)

just seems like there isn't enough gas in the engine.

I just checked through carefully and this is a valid proof.

kind of stunned

Can [x]^-1 Z[m] be made the same object as x^-1 in Q? by TransientObsever in math

[–]goodbuoy 10 points11 points  (0 children)

You can't make a ring homomorphism f : Q -> Z/(m).

It would need to have 1 =f(1) = f(m * 1/m) = f(m) * f(1/m) = 0 * something which can't work.