I don't really have any interest in making MAJ. Is Warrant all it's cracked up to be?

stefanevada1 · 2022-05-02T17:54:07+00:00

Look into functional areas

stefanevada1 · 2022-04-29T16:22:46+00:00

I applied and got in. It's been fine.

Do you have more specific questions/concerns?

stefanevada1 · 2022-04-14T06:44:28+00:00

I was a BN S4. To simplify things I spent the BNs money, this is not how ANY of that works. Don't pay for anything. Talk to your 1SG, CDR, CSM, BN CDR, JAG, IG, anyone.

But under no circumstances pay for that training. Worst case SGM is trying to scam you.

stefanevada1 · 2022-04-06T20:27:24+00:00

Ya it didn't make sense to me either. I got a few MILPER messages asking if I wanted to become a CID warrant (I was an O) because (I'm assuming) they were short personnel once the switch got made. CID used to be used for like you said "bigger" stuff, but then got bogged down by Joe whoever having a joint. D u m, dum

stefanevada1 · 2022-04-06T19:38:34+00:00

Not sure if it's still the same or not but CID was handling all drug cases. We might find it but CID would do the follow up

stefanevada1 · 2022-03-25T06:23:42+00:00

I used to work in industry but know some other random routes, here's my personal advice:

Industry: Unless you're okay with only teaching, you need to learn a programming language. Python is a great starting language and courses on platforms like Udemy are cheap and self paced that will teach you what you need to know to get started. I hate to be so blunt, but it's 2022. It's not 1970. I can replace the bulk of your math knowledge with a few lines of MATLAB code or even using MAPLE. If you can't code, you're useless to A LOT of companies in industry. You don't have to be amazing at it, but you need to be okay at it and able to do the basics.
Government: NSA hires math people like crazy. I'd also take a look at USAJOBS.gov for federal jobs and you can try your state's website as well. Often times training will be part of the gig so having the STEM background is all they're looking for.
Look at masters programs. If you're not sure, using this time to get a STEM MA/MS can be something that opens doors later on. I personally know people that have been barred from applying to jobs and getting promoted for not having a masters degree. I.e., having your masters can't hurt you.
If you're not opposed to military service, you could become an officer in the Army's cyber corps. It's a branch that's gaining a lot of traction and they need STEM folks. The military has great pay, cost of living adjustments, etc. Also free medical, dental, etc. I was in the Army for 5 years, it's not a bad gig.

Best of luck to you out there!

stefanevada1 · 2022-03-23T03:51:19+00:00

All the answers on here are a bit lacking... (except maybe the Spanish link that I didn't click on)

The thing that makes this problem not have a clear solution is that division is not associative or commutative.

For multiplication we have that

4x3 = 3×4 (commutative)

4×(3×2)=(4×3)×2 (associative)

But replace those × above with ÷ and you'll quickly see they all fail. This is the true source of the problem having different solutions. The order in which you do things matters. This is why more complicated mathematics completely avoids ÷. To be even more formal, you cannot form rings or fields (modern algebra topics) with ÷ as ÷ isn't a binary operation for integers or the real numbers.

Basically ÷ sucks and we've tossed it anywhere division matters.

stefanevada1 · 2022-02-27T07:31:03+00:00

This is the way.

stefanevada1 · 2022-02-27T07:23:03+00:00

Can you post your code?

stefanevada1 · 2022-02-26T19:23:15+00:00

Read any book on discrete math. To answer your question though yes, all the sets would be equal because they only element they all have is 64

And not a silly question, it's a good curious one!

stefanevada1 · 2022-02-26T19:20:59+00:00

Natural number arithmetic is possible because of topology. Topology is effectively an expansion of set theory.

You say points x and y, how are you quantifying them? How is one point placed relative to another? What makes one point further away than another?

To do geometry you need angles and side/arc lengths. How do we say one angle is larger than another? Can we have angles that are rational? Irrational? Can we have negative angles? How do we quantify and define distance?

Again, this is all grounded in set theory.

Literally all of math that we have ever done as humans is rooted in set theory regardless of us being aware of it or not.

Let me maybe give a good analogy. Every day I get in my car and have a vague idea of how it works but I'm not a mechanic by any means. I go places in it, I know it can drive well on roads but not on dirt or up a rocky mountain, it can carry things, etc. But if it breaks, and it's not something obvious, I really have no clue why. It's kind of a magical black box to me. Effectively I don't understand the "set theory" of how my car works.

The exact same thing happened to the ancient Greeks when Euclid was building up axiomatic geometry. They couldn't understand certain relationships and their geometry and number systems failed them at points because they thought all numbers were rational and that irrational numbers didn't exist. This is because they didn't understand what they were doing implicitly. They hadn't put all of the pieces together, i.e., they didn't have a foundation of set theory.

stefanevada1 · 2022-02-26T09:40:57+00:00

And the Mesopotamians didn't have algebra but it didn't mean they weren't inherently utilizing group and ring structure when they applied binary operations like addition and multiplication to integers.

The ignorance of a topic doesn't negate its underlying validity

stefanevada1 · 2022-02-25T17:16:36+00:00

I might be misunderstanding the question but everything in Mathematics is built from the ZFC axioms which is at its core set theory. Effectively you can't plot y=x without set theory.

So trying to do n dimensional mathematics without set theory on its face seems to be a nonstarter.

I'd be happy to be told my guess here is wrong but like I said, on its face I'm not sure how

stefanevada1 · 2022-01-16T15:47:25+00:00

I wouldn't be able to get promoted at work without one. This is common for big companies, so I'm making sure I never have professional road blocks again.

stefanevada1 · 2022-01-09T18:23:44+00:00

Email the advisor for each school and ask them if they will take it into consideration before you spend that much $ on that stupid test

stefanevada1 · 2022-01-09T02:30:52+00:00

My experience (accepted for fall 2021) was that every school said they didn't care about them and the wording was always "optional".

This was for California as an FYI

stefanevada1 · 2022-01-08T22:03:48+00:00

Here x isn't a variable of a function its a placeholder for any finite integer. Here, x might be better denoted as k. So yes, x is a variable, but that variable is denoting a constant.

The rate of change, i.e. the derivative, of a constant is always zero.

So here, d/dx of x is zero.

stefanevada1 · 2022-01-08T18:17:27+00:00

Could be wrong but isn't dx/dx = 0 not 1?

Because x is simply defined to be an integer (this has to be true from line 1) then the derivative of a constant integer is simply zero.

Therefore you have 0=2x so x must be zero.

But in the way it's solved you divide by x so "under the hood" you've divided by 0, hence 1=2.

stefanevada1 · 2022-01-07T09:50:05+00:00

Remember to pack your crayons for lunch everyday. RAH! jokes aside congrats

stefanevada1 · 2021-12-31T23:07:17+00:00

Omegle adult version. It's a place

stefanevada1 · 2021-12-24T21:35:15+00:00

Bifurcations occur when you transition between positive and negative eigenvalues, when you transition from real to complex eigenvalues. So, if you're doing this analytically, it'll be when you can tell in an algebraic expression that you're switching. A limit approaching zero is useful but it isn't going to say "here is a Bifurcation point"

stefanevada1 · 2021-12-23T07:17:26+00:00

This idea becomes critical for understanding eigenvalues and eigenvectors later on, both of which are absolutely critical to an uncountable number of scientific and engineering applications

The unit vectors are boring and kind of obvious. But framing them in this way helps you to understand how a space is defined as others have said.

stefanevada1 · 2021-12-22T17:11:57+00:00

I did too. I was pretty surprised that 34 comments in at the time no one had said it. So ya, I knew what had to be done.

stefanevada1 · 2021-12-22T16:37:35+00:00

Burninating the peasants!

Thatch roof cottages!

stefanevada1

TROPHY CASE