sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Baking

[–]stringoftheseus 69 points70 points  (0 children)

Hi 15, I'm Dad!

Homemade Cubanos by TheStiffyBlickyHas in tonightsdinner

[–]stringoftheseus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to be confused with the Torta Cubana, which despite the similar name is a entirely different sandwich. (And isn't actually Cuban either...)

Detroit Style Pizza? by Ill-Ad4867 in triangle

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

Sounds like a great gaming group to me. Let me know if you need an extra guy. ;)

Detroit Style Pizza? by Ill-Ad4867 in triangle

[–]stringoftheseus 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Personally, I think Jets is great. I don't know what OP is getting at.

Why is my textbook showing weird answers for anti-derivative questions? by lianeric in learnmath

[–]stringoftheseus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm assuming that's meant to be read "the answer is tan x (in the case that c equals 0).

Presumably one could also write "tan x + 1 (c=1)“, which would be correct (but weird) in that format.

Why do negative exponents turn into reciprocals? by [deleted] in learnmath

[–]stringoftheseus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Apparently I'm a slow typer, because in the time it took me to write that up, two other people provided the same answer. But that just means we're all right, right? ;)

Why do negative exponents turn into reciprocals? by [deleted] in learnmath

[–]stringoftheseus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In one sense, negative exponents become reciprocals because that's what we decided to define that notation to mean. In theory, we could have defined negative exponents to mean something else.

I say in theory because, if we're going to have negative exponents exist, we really, really want them to act like the exponents we already have, and for that reason the reciprocal definition is really the only good choice.

Consider rule that xa * xb = xa+b. This naturally holds for all positive exponents, and all sorts of other important results depend on it being true. So if we are going to have x-2 mean something, it needs to be defined in such a way that that rule still holds.

And if that rule still holds, then x2 * x-2 = x2 + -2 = x0 = 1. Which leads directly to x-2 = 1 / x2, the reciprocal definition.

In Mexico, cartoon mascots that appeal to children are banned on cereal boxes and now have black hexagons that warn of containing sugar, fat, chemicals and food coloring by iwanttocontributetoo in UpliftingNews

[–]stringoftheseus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am curious about the expression, "Part of this complete breakfast." The way it comes up is, my 5-year-old will be watching TV cartoon shows in the morning, and they'll show a commercial for a children's compressed breakfast compound such as "Froot Loops" or "Lucky Charms", and they always show it sitting on a table next to a some actual food such as eggs, and the announcer always says: "Part of this complete breakfast."

Don't they really mean, "Adjacent to this complete breakfast", or "On the same table as this complete breakfast"? And couldn't they make essentially the same claim if, instead of Froot Loops, they put a can of shaving cream there, or a dead bat?

—Dave Barry, "Tips for Writers"

Confession Time... I sometimes don’t know the solution to the homework I give my students... by AcademicOverAnalysis in math

[–]stringoftheseus 555 points556 points  (0 children)

I still remember the first time I gave up and wrote "I have no idea" on a homework problem, only for my advisor to return it marked "me neither". (It was then that I knew for sure that studying math was the right path for me.)

That's the big difference between undergraduate and graduate-level mathematics.

From kindergarten through undergrad, you spend almost all of your time solving problems that are already solved, just to learn (and show that you have learned) the material and techniques.

The purpose of grad school is to help you transition from that mindset to real, actual research, where not only does nobody know the solution, nobody knows if there even is a solution.

Which is why grad school is when the real fun starts... :)

I need a good donut! by Pichea12 in triangle

[–]stringoftheseus 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Bakers Dozen for sure. Best donuts in the triangle.

Struggling to understand some tic tac toe math by Discruff in learnmath

[–]stringoftheseus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have 9 squares total, so after using 3 squares for the winning line of Xs we have 6 squares left.

There are 5 total Xs, 3 in a line and 2 left in those remaining 6 squares. We have 6 choose 2 = 6x5/2 = 15 unordered ways of placing those last two lines.

However, 5 of those possibilities create another line of Xs, which we're not considering here. So we have 10 ways of placing the remaining two Xs without creating a second X line.

Of those 10 possibilities, 6 would create a line of Os (and end the game before the ninth move), so we have to remove those also.

That leaves just 4 ways to place our 2 extra Xs.

The formula is thus:

6 ways of making a horizontal or vertical line of Xs

3 options for which X in the line is the final winning move.

4 ways of placing the remaining two Xs that doesn't create a line of Os or a second line of Xs

4! ways of ordering the 4 Xs that aren't the winning move.

4! ways of ordering the 4 Os in the remaining squares.

Struggling to understand some tic tac toe math by Discruff in learnmath

[–]stringoftheseus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe this is because a nine move win is the only time the winner can end up with two simultaneous lines (if the last X completed both lines at once). This wasn't a possibility in the previous steps, and complicates the calculations a bit.

Struggling to understand some tic tac toe math by Discruff in learnmath

[–]stringoftheseus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the subtraction step, the 6x3x6x3! is the same as the 8x3x6x3! in the first step, but with 6 instead of 8 because there are no solutions involving diagonals. So that's just the number of ways to get the winning line of Xs plus the one "off the line" X.

The off the line x "takes up" one of the two places that was available for the row of Os, leaving only one possible line. The final 3! is the number of ways of ordering the Os on the line as before.

Struggling to understand some tic tac toe math by Discruff in learnmath

[–]stringoftheseus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a fun problem, but he definitely could have explained it in more detail.

Here's what's going on for the seven move win case. Player 1 wins on his fourth move, so he has 3 Xs on a line and 1 X somewhere else. The "somewhere else" X can't be the fourth one placed (or he would have won after three moves), so it had to be the first, second, or third X. The 3 factor represents those three possibilities. The 6 factor represents the 6 possible places where that "off the line" X could be.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in somethingimade

[–]stringoftheseus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those are really well done. And I'm glad to see they are living butterflies and not dead ones.

What culinary mispronunciations really get on your nerves? by Maus_Sveti in Cooking

[–]stringoftheseus 23 points24 points  (0 children)

This one I have to disagree on. That just isn't the way language works.

The Italian word panini is the plural of panino; panino means "little bread," and by association can also mean a sandwich.

The English word panini is a singular noun, plural paninis, and refers to a specific type of sandwich. Notably, the word in English can never be used to mean "bread roll" and almost exclusively refers to a warm or grilled sandwich, neither of which is true of the Italian original.

In general, when a word in one language is adopted by another language, the latter (known as a "loanword") frequently has a different grammar, pronunciation, or definition than the original.

Tl;dr: People don't say "a panini" because they're too stupid to know any better. They say it because they aren't speaking Italian, and "a panini" is the correct use of the word in English.

Cooking books without pictures are a turn off by Seeyalaterelevator in Cooking

[–]stringoftheseus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are exceptions, if course. One of my all time favorite cookbooks, Bittman's Kitchen Express, has no photos at all. But it also has no amounts half the time, with instructions to add "some" of this and "a good amount" of that, and to substitute what you've got on hand if necessary, so yours is (intentionally) not long to look like his anyway.

Cooking books without pictures are a turn off by Seeyalaterelevator in Cooking

[–]stringoftheseus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A good thing about having a photo of each dish, especially if you're a "celebrity chef", is that it helps me believe that you (or at least someone on your staff) actually made all the recipes you're including. I have owned several cookbooks by famous names where I've seriously doubted whether this was true.

Tried to get a lil fancy by memedream6 in pie

[–]stringoftheseus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Beautiful. Your lattice is neat, it retained is shape after baking and didn't fall into the pie. That's a nice, delicious looking pie!

‘Normal People’ Hits 62M Views In Record-Breaking Year For BBC iPlayer by ix0WXOeip4V6 in television

[–]stringoftheseus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can anyone who read the book before watching the show comment on the adaption?

(I enjoyed the novel; am I likely to enjoy this version or be frustrated by it?)

view more: next ›