|
I like to geek out on math. Math is cool. Here's a math: That's called the harmonic series. If the dividend remains at 1, and the divisor increases by whole numbers, then the sum will approach infinity, even though the fractions included in the sum get smaller and smaller and smaller. Cool!
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 19:06 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 22:08 |
|
|
oops poo poo post, math is poo poo
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 19:10 |
|
|
Bluehay posted:I like to geek out on math. Math is cool. Here's a math: Ugh...This is the beginning of the suck. This series is cool, and it is the harmonic series, but when you apply this definition to more complex functions, this get ugly. This is widely considered the most difficult definition in calculus. However, the cool part is this: http://tinyurl.com/qwluyz It explains why, or shows rather, the sort of slap back and resulting harmonics in all sorts of musical devices. This is how a guitar sting or related items develop the harmonic overtone series which has a lot to do with timbre, and the inverse of forier transformation...so it is purty neato indeed. Here is the harmonic notation that describes additive syntheses (in synthesizers) http://tinyurl.com/at2zd3g All other forms of synthesis can also be described with maths...but I like additive cause its old school.
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 19:21 |
|
|
Mathis cool.
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 19:41 |
|
|
Every bit of maths that this lady does... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODk5_bwydDQ
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 19:46 |
|
|
You + me - our clothes / your legs and * It doesn't follow pemdas, but gently caress pemdas!
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 19:48 |
|
|
Bluehay posted:oops poo poo post, math is poo poo  I'm sure you meant to say math is the poo poo! Dawg!
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 19:52 |
|
|
Davethehedgehog posted:Every bit of maths that this lady does... I like her. She has a nice, teacherly voice.
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 19:53 |
|
|
There is something both frightening and strangely comforting about the Navier-Stokes equation      This describes the direction of rate of change in three dimensions of any given three dimensional point in a fluid, making it a 3x3x3 matrix, aka a tensor
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 19:54 |
|
|
Bluehay posted:I like her. She has a nice, teacherly voice. and a nice lazy eye...proving once again the most base of math assumptions....no hot chicks.
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 20:00 |
|
|
Here's a guy with an accent describing math wizardry involving pi and matchsticks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJVivjuMfWA Here's a chipper and scrawny fellow describing other math wizardry involving interesting decimals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daro6K6mym8
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 20:12 |
|
|
wrinklepuff posted:and a nice lazy eye...proving once again the most base of math assumptions....no hot chicks. She has an imperfection.. BURN HER!!! Vi Hart is a forum favourite too. Here's an interesting video on Wau. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFLkou8NvJo
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 20:17 |
|
|
BigHead posted:Here's a guy with an accent describing math wizardry involving pi and matchsticks: Numberphile is awesome! I particularly enjoy their discourses on Rubik's Cube, and this demonstration, I think, is quite beautiful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTyzE-NDga8 (for those uninclined to click links without description, it's a tour through the absolute most difficult positioning of a Rubik's Cube: how it works, how to solve it. awesome poo poo.) Good suggestions, the world could use more numberphiles.
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 20:22 |
|
|
A(g64, g64) What is this "maths", it's called "math" and "math equations" 
|
| # ? Feb 17, 2013 20:57 |
|
|
My favorite:
|
| # ? Feb 18, 2013 03:19 |
|
|
 The classic.
|
| # ? Feb 18, 2013 04:29 |
|
|
Steiner Math is the best math. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFoC3TR5rzI
|
| # ? Feb 18, 2013 04:38 |
|
|
Mathematics by Mos Def is my favourite kind of math. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5vw4ajnWGA
|
| # ? Feb 18, 2013 05:30 |
|
|
Euler's formula  
|
| # ? Feb 18, 2013 05:42 |
|
|
It's physics, but whatever: The speed of light in free space is equal to 1 over the square root of the vacuum permeability of free space times the vacuum permittivity of free space. Or this one  The radius at which you have reached the point of no return in a black hole. the fucked around with this message at Feb 18, 2013 around 06:05 |
| # ? Feb 18, 2013 06:02 |
|
|
Modus tollens is one of my favorites: Simple and powerful.
|
| # ? Feb 18, 2013 06:10 |
|
|
 or if you prefer  Eigenvector-eigenvalue equation. So much great stuff can be recast as a eigenvalue problem.
|
| # ? Feb 18, 2013 06:15 |
|
|
My favorite video about the "language of numbers". http://vimeo.com/13497928
|
| # ? Feb 18, 2013 07:35 |
|
|
I really like taking a number and multiplying it by some other number. Also, finding the inductive reactance of a circuit.
|
| # ? Feb 18, 2013 10:29 |
|
|
A variant of what benzine posted above: It just brings all these important constants together so nicely... How can you not love it!
|
| # ? Feb 19, 2013 10:34 |
|
|
The second law of thermodynamics
|
| # ? Feb 19, 2013 11:08 |
|
|
Davethehedgehog posted:She has an imperfection.. BURN HER!!! Ow my brain. It's just...1. I thought I was being smart by realizing it was just 1 during the e=MC^2 demonstration, by thinking "Well, if e=MC^2, it can be cancelled off and become 1^wau = 1^2, and 1 to the power of anything = 1. Then she ruined my mathsbuzz by just saying at the end "Yup, it's just 1." Then it all dawned on me. Of course Wau^Wau = Wau, that's literally just saying 1*1 = 1. VogeGandire fucked around with this message at Feb 19, 2013 around 11:42 |
| # ? Feb 19, 2013 11:40 |
|
|
wrinklepuff posted:and a nice lazy eye...proving once again the most base of math assumptions....no hot chicks. Wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtt-IR1u-HM
|
| # ? Feb 19, 2013 12:41 |
|
|
Super Waffle posted:There is something both frightening and strangely comforting about the Navier-Stokes equation Almost everything you wrote in this post is wrong. These are indeed the Cartesian Navier-Stokes equations for the special case of incompressible Newtonian flow, accounting for gravity but neglecting other body forces. The Navier-Stokes equations are a system of equations (or, alternatively, a vector equation), not a tensor, which is a special mathematical construct which represents geometrical relations between vectors, scalars, and other tensors. Plus, even if it were a tensor, it would be unusual for it to be a tensor of rank 3. The most common tensors which show up in continuum mechanics in general are the stress and strain tensors (of rank 2) and some sort of constitutive law tensor (of rank 4). And your explanation of it is just plain wrong: the Navier-Stokes equations specify fluid velocity at any point in the flow - they don't indicate the "direction of rate of change in three dimensions [ed. - of what quantity?]" of anything (except position). They are just an application of Newton's Second Law. But this: is not even part of the Navier-Stokes equations. It's just the law of conservation of mass for a continuum. Actually, in this sense, it makes sense to include it near the Navier-Stokes equations, because both this equation and the Navier-Stokes equations describe some sort of continuity - this equation describes continuity of mass, while the Navier-Stokes equations describe continuity of momentum. John McCain fucked around with this message at Feb 19, 2013 around 16:28 |
| # ? Feb 19, 2013 16:13 |
|
|
I will never not be puzzled and amazed by the Banach-Tarski paradox, no matter how much math I learn. Basically it involves separating a sphere into very complicated pieces and, using simple translations, recombining it into two identical spheres. It was invented to call into question the validity of the axiom of choice, but I think it's just a really cool feat of reasoning overall. Brouwer's fixed-point theorem is also a cool one. The physical implication of it is pretty incredible: Say you take two sheets of printer paper, and lay one directly over the other. Then, crumple the top sheet and place it so it doesn't go over the edge of the bottom sheet. It's mathematically provable that at least one point on the crumpled sheet is exactly above the equivalent point on the non-crumpled sheet. Oh and the four-dimensional equivalent of a sphere is much cooler than a hypercube:  
|
| # ? Feb 19, 2013 20:52 |
|
|
y=mx+b does a good job at calculating cost for basic needs.
|
| # ? Feb 19, 2013 21:17 |
|
|
 Benford's law. Simple, beautiful, and deadly to embezzlers.
|
| # ? Feb 19, 2013 21:28 |
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_ball_theorem So one day, some mathematician had to choose between naming his theorem after his own name for posterity, or naming it the Hairy ball theorem. He obviously made the best choice.
|
| # ? Feb 19, 2013 23:55 |
|
|
John McCain posted:Almost everything you wrote in this post is wrong. Ok ok you caught me, I got a B in fluid mechanics like a year and a half ago  As penance, heres one thats hard to mess up: F = ma When in doubt...
|
| # ? Feb 20, 2013 01:11 |
|
|
the posted:It's physics, but whatever: twosideddice posted:The second law of thermodynamics Super Waffle posted:F = ma Here are some maths: Why is the area of a circle πr2?  source If you use more and more slices that's closer to a rectangle of height r and length πr, so the area is πr2. Why is √2 irrational? If it weren't, then there'd be a smallest triangle with sides of integer length in proportion 1:1:√2 (just scale the 1:1:√2 triangle by whatever the denominator of √2 is). But then:  source Can an irrational to an irrational power be rational? Let a be (√2)√2. If a is rational, we're done since √2 is irrational. If a isn't rational, then a√2=((√2)√2)√2=(√2)(√2)*(√2)=(√2)2=2, so that "a√2" is an irrational to an irrational power that's rational. Answering which of these is the case involves some heavy duty mathematics, but it turns out that a is irrational. For reference, there's a small math question thread in Science, Academics and Languages. helopticor fucked around with this message at Feb 20, 2013 around 05:29 |
| # ? Feb 20, 2013 05:26 |
|
|
NienNunb posted:
Well thank gently caress, one I recognize. My personal favorite is the formula for adding all the numbers between 1 and n, [n(n+1)]/2. I love it because it's a straightforward way of showing the power of formulas to my GED students as a way to save time rather than brute force solutions or "eyeballing" and guesswork. I'd post the picture like other people have been doing but imgur doesn't work at my office for some reason. Lotish fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 17:38 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 17:29 |
|
|
Traditional math is cool and all, but it's not much to look at. I prefer fractal geometry.     As for videos, this one is a classic.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2013 04:27 |
|
|
Squares are the sum of consecutive odd numbers. 1^2 = 1 2^2 = 1+3 3^2 = 1+3+5 4^2 = 1+3+5+7
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2013 04:59 |
|
|
Graham's number is pretty cool.wikipedia posted:Graham's number is unimaginably larger than other well-known large numbers such as a googol, googolplex, and even larger than Skewes' number and Moser's number. Indeed, like the latter two numbers, the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies at least one Planck volume. Even power towers of the form are useless for this purpose, although it can be easily described by recursive formulas using Knuth's up-arrow notation or the equivalent, as was done by Graham. 
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2013 05:10 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 22:08 |
|
|
Ah, the mathematics of ridiculously large numbers is always fun. Consider a Turing machine - an abstraction of a computer with an infinite amount of memory, essentially - that has an instruction set which is n bits in size. Obviously there are only a finite number (2^n, in fact) of programs that are n bits long. Some of these programs run for a while and then stop, and some of them might get stuck in an infinite loop. Define S(n) as the largest finite number any n-bit program can output before it ends. For small programs this won't be very many; for example, the first four terms of the series are 1, 4, 6, 13. So far, it looks pretty mundane. Doesn't seem to be getting too big too fast. Now, any normal series (defined by addition, multiplication, up-arrows, stacks of up-arrows, etc.) can be coded as a program that the Turing machine can calculate. But we've just defined a series which is the maximum possible finite number that a certain size of program can output, so our S(n) must actually grow faster than any "computable" series, i.e. any series that can be defined in the normal way by using combinations of arithmetical operators. We've just defined a series that grows so fast that no matter how powerful a computer you have, you cannot calculate it. The known lower bounds for S(5) and S(6) are 4098 and 1.29*10^865, so you can see how the very rapid growth is beginning. I'd say it's unlikely that we'll ever be able to determine what the exact values are for anything past that, and in fact we'd have to invent new notation systems for each term simply because each one is so much bigger than the one before. References: http://oeis.org/A028444 (My favourite part: "Given that 5-state 2-symbol halting Turing machines can compute Collatz-like congruential functions, it may be very hard to find the next term." Note that some have opined that we may be required to invent entirely new types of mathematics in order to prove the Collatz conjecture, so "very hard" is probably somewhat of an understatement.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver Are merely finite sequences too small for you? Why not head over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number and get your mind blown by infinities larger than infinity.
|
| # ? Feb 24, 2013 13:28 |
|
