Mathematics - 2013-05-13 (page 1 of 4)

@ItsMitch do you know the power rule $(c t^\alpha)'=c \alpha t^{\alpha-1}$? Find what $c$ and $\alpha$ need to be so that $K\sqrt{t}$ is $c\alpha t^{\alpha-1}$.

equivalently, use the fact that the antiderivative of $t^{1/2}$ is $\displaystyle\frac{t^{1+1/2}}{1+1/2}+C$

ItsMitch

I see

Ethan

integrate both sides wrt

does it make sense?

Ethan

12:31 AM

On an asymptotic average half of the distinct tuples (a,b) with $1\leq a \leq n$ and $1\leq b\leq n$, have $\gcd(a,b)=1$

Is a nice application of the fact $\phi(n)*1=n$

ItsMitch

@anon I get $k\cdot\frac{2}{3}\cdot\sqrt{t^3}$

Faust7

Anyone know wher ei cna find a good but very basic explanation of the divergence theorem?

Preferably veyr rigourous no tricks or formula straight derivation's with cross products instead of rember this etc

ItsMitch

@ethan could you give me a hand?

Faust7

@ mitch whats the orginal question?

Ethan

@ItsMitch what do you need?

ItsMitch

12:39 AM

initial bacteria size is 500, after 1 day it's 600, what is it after 7 days. time is in days

rate of growth is k*sqrt t

Faust7

?

Peter Tamaroff

@Ethan Bacterias reproduce exponentially, sillypants!

@ItsMitch Don't you want to model a function of the form $$f(t)=t_0+c\cdot e^{at}$$

??

Ethan

@PeterTamaroff I don't specialize in biology, but I assume there are going to be some that don't

Faust7

set it up as a diffrential equation

ItsMitch

I tried the antiderivative, plugged 500 and time as 1, but I do not get 100 or 600.

Ethan

12:42 AM

he says the rate of groth is proportional to the square root of the number of days past

Faust7

oh sorry

ItsMitch

rate of growth is $\frac{dP}{dt}=k\sqrt{t}$ P is population size. t is time in days

Ethan

Assuming your bacteria reproduces at a continuous rate (which it doesn't), then the change in size with respect to time is equal to some constant times $\sqrt t$

If you integrate both sides from t=0, to t=1 day

Faust7

im starting tow onder how i got 98% in 3rd year de's

Ethan

you know at t=0 it is 500, and at t=1 day its 600

ItsMitch

12:46 AM

yup

Ethan

so you should get 600-500 on the lhs

lhs?

left hand side

ok

Define a function that represents the population size of the bacteria in terms of the time past, now represent a relationship between this function and the rate of growth of the bacteria in terms of the time past

How do you think you can represent this relationship in terms of the derivative operator?

Faust7

12:51 AM

how do you calculate the rate of growth ?

ItsMitch

u know what? I have been doing about 30 exercises and my brain is frying, I have about 2 more to go and I dont understand anything anymore

let me take a break and continue is about 5 - 10 mins

Peter Tamaroff

@Ethan How do we extend $\zeta(s)$ for $0<s<1$?

Ethan

@PeterTamaroff I can regurgitate the answer, but I can't explain to you why, I don't really know much about analytic continuation

Peter Tamaroff

@Ethan OK, let's try.

Ethan

1:06 AM

@PeterTamaroff write $\zeta(s)=1+\frac{1}{2^s}+\frac{1}{3^s}...$, so that $$\zeta(s)(1-\frac{2}{2^s})=1-\frac{1}{2^s}+\frac{1}{3^s}-\frac{1}{4^s}...=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{n^s}$$

Peter Tamaroff

@Ethan Oh, and this converges conditionally, yes?

Ethan

So that $\zeta(s)(1-2^{1-s})=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{n^s}$

divide both sides by $(1-2^{1-s})$

@PeterTamaroff yes

Peter Tamaroff

Yes, perfect.

Ethan

@PeterTamaroff the function $\eta(s)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{n^s}$ is called the dirichlet eta function for future reference if you need it

Peter Tamaroff

@Ethan Yes, that I know, thanks.

@robjohn

robjohn

1:11 AM

@PeterTamaroff yes?

Peter Tamaroff

@robjohn Is this correct? If $f$ has a continuous derivative, $$\sum_{k=1}^n f(k)=\int_1^n f(x) dx+\int_1^n f'(x)\{x\}dx$$

ItsMitch

Alright, so I don't know how solve this.

robjohn

@PeterTamaroff It looks right. I have to go out for a while, I will give it a closer look when I get back

Peter Tamaroff

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Got it.

It is alright, I was missing something elsewhere =)

Silly me!

ItsMitch

Word problems. How do they work?

Peter Tamaroff

1:15 AM

Oh, no. Wait.

Fuuuu

I still have an extra $1$ going around.

I want to prove $$\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{1}{k^s}=\frac{1}{n^{s-1}}+s\int_1^n \frac{[x]}{x^{s+1}}dx$$

But I'm getting an extra $-1$ in the RHS.

Gustavo Bandeira

@PeterTamaroff Why do the call right hand side instead of right side?

Peter Tamaroff

@GustavoBandeira No clue! =D

Ask in ELU.

Gustavo Bandeira

@PeterTamaroff Let's inovate: "Right foot side".

Peter Tamaroff

@robjohn I think I found the mistake

Faust7

AGustav +1

@*

Gustavo Bandeira

1:19 AM

@Faust7 :P

I supose you tried to ping me.

J. M.

►

(It's not the reason; I just remembered it.)

Peter Tamaroff

@robjohn Yes, I was missing $+f(1)$ on the RHS. Fixed =)

$$\sum_{k=1}^n f(k)=f(1)+\int_1^n f(x) dx+\int_1^n f'(x)\{x\}dx$$

Faust7

Looks like the 70's

Peter Tamaroff

@J.M. Holy crackers. I love it.

Gustavo Bandeira

@J.M. Is it a sofisticated way of saying I'm something socially accepted as negative? Such as stupid/stoned?

J. M.

1:22 AM

@Faust7 80's, actually.

@GustavoBandeira It's a novelty song; don't take it too seriously. :)

Gustavo Bandeira

No, I'm not taking. =D

Faust7

my bad wasnt born till 88 and i associate everything weird with the 70's cause thats when my mom was born.

Peter Tamaroff

@J.M. Do we use $$\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{1}{k^s}=\frac{1}{n^{s-1}}+s\int_1^n \frac{[x]}{x^{s+1}}dx$$ to extend $\zeta(1)$ to $0<s<1$.

???

J. M.

Lends easily to spoofing too: "pass the differential to the right hand side..."

Gustavo Bandeira

@J.M. When I read the title, I thought that it was something like: Pass the douchebagity.

J. M.

1:24 AM

@GustavoBandeira Oh dear...

@PeterTamaroff That'd work, but I prefer Dirichlet's route myself.

Peter Tamaroff

@J.M. $\eta(s)$?

J. M.

(or the reflection formula)

@PeterTamaroff Yes, that.

Peter Tamaroff

@J.M. And what do we use to extend to $s<0$?

Gustavo Bandeira

@J.M. Yes. I'll stop deserving what I mentioned here now. But I'll eventualy get back to it, it's a vicious cycle.

Peter Tamaroff

I'll run, Game of Thrones airing!

Faust7

1:25 AM

Still looking for a rigour proof of the divergence theorem is anyone knows wher ei can find it

J. M.

@PeterTamaroff In that case, the functional equation/reflection formula is what I'd go to.

Faust7

my relevant books really suck

Peter Tamaroff

@J.M. Aha.

Gustavo Bandeira

@Faust7 And they are relevant! Imagine about your worst books?

J. M.

@PeterTamaroff Now, run along and go enjoy your medievals... ;)

Gustavo Bandeira

1:27 AM

@J.M. What's the next thing you're planning to use as an avatar?

Faust7

@Gustav i don't follow

Gustavo Bandeira

1 - You said your *relevant* books really suck.
2 - Those are suposedly your best books.
3 - You might own some bad (or not relevant books).
4 - Those must suck 10 billion times more than the relevant books.

@Faust7 Ask in the main.

Faust7

My book is quite possibly in top 5 worst texts ever published in English... im sure the guy forgot to pay the grad students who made the answers in the back cause only 70% of them are right ive found 2 incorrect proofs and its like trying to read math in anthor language

worst of all i actually paid money for it...

J. M.

@GustavoBandeira I can't say. :)

Gustavo Bandeira

@Faust7 $$\text{im sure the guy forgot to pay the grad students who made the answers in the back!!!}$$

J. M.

1:32 AM

@Faust7 That is unfortunate...

Gustavo Bandeira

XD XD XD

@Faust7 Pressuposing they were grad students! XD

@Faust7 What book is it?

Faust7

The guy actually failed to prove that $\partial x \partial y =\partial y \partial x $ in a "Advanced Calculus " textbook arguably only in name

Advanced Calculus By Gerald B. Folland

Gustavo Bandeira

@Faust7 But the problem is only in the answers?

Faust7

not just the answers 2 of his proofs are incorrect in the book

he trys to prove $\partial x \partial y =\partial y \partial x $ in a formal argument

on pg 79 and applies the mean value theorem in a case where it does apply

does not*

user1

@Faust7 Yeah when I was eight years old, he randomly knocked on my door and told me to write some gibberish for him.

Faust7

1:39 AM

Im sure if i was smarter i could follow what he was doing but the book is waay over my head

Gustavo Bandeira

@Faust7 Have you verified if there's an errata?

Faust7

i asked my prof cause it didn't make sense and he confirmed in the form he used it that it was defiantly incorrect

Gustavo Bandeira

You should mail the author.

And point the errors.

$\huge \text{Best diet for doing non-commutative algebra!}$

@BrianM.Scott LoL Brian.

Faust7

Wow that is one giant rant

and defintaly a math rant

there was a circle in their to the point where i don't even know which side he was arguing on.

user72273

When should I do a problem set after reading a chapter in a textbook? Immediately after? After I read the next chapter?

Gustavo Bandeira

1:51 AM

@user72273 Whenever you judge necessary.

Alexander Gruber

@GustavoBandeira im pretty sure that's amphetamines and bourbon.

Gustavo Bandeira

XD

user72273

So I should only do a problem set if it's necessary? How do I decide if it's necessary?

Gustavo Bandeira

@user72273 You'll have to make the exercises, but perhaps you could focus a little more on reading.

Like: Spend 5 minutes in an exercise and 10 reading.

sth like that.

Alexander Gruber

@tobiaskildetoft

Faust7

1:54 AM

Ever notice that math rants are alot like math proofs? they start one one side argue for awhile then switch teams and argue again till both sides imply each other.... In the end the only readers not thoroughly confused have a math degree.

user72273

I spend maybe 2 hours reading and comprehending a chapter of Spivak, and 1 day finishing the chapter's problem sets. :s

Gustavo Bandeira

xD

@user72273 Really? I got stuck for a lot of time in the exercises.

But I had a different history - perhaps that's it.

Or I was born stupid

user72273

Well, no I cheat by Googling a problem if I can't finish it in a few hours.

Gustavo Bandeira

@user72273 ¬¬

Argon

@robjohn Can one evaluate $$\int_0^\infty \frac{\sin(x)}{\sqrt{x}}\,dx$$ by means of contour integration?

user72273

1:57 AM

@GustavoBandeira (´・ω・`)

J. M.

2:09 AM

@Alexander, thanks to your question, I got to see the Propp and Teismann articles. Very nice!

user1

@user72273 I am bad at searching, it seems, because most of the problems I do and get stuck on are not easy to find.

robjohn

$$
\begin{align}
\int_0^\infty\frac{e^{ix}}{\sqrt{x}}\,\mathrm{d}x
&=\int_0^{i\infty}\frac{e^{ix}}{\sqrt{x}}\,\mathrm{d}x\\
&=\sqrt{i}\int_0^\infty\frac{e^{-x}}{\sqrt{x}}\,\mathrm{d}x\\
&=\frac{1+i}{\sqrt2}\Gamma(1/2)\\
&=(1+i)\sqrt{\pi/2}
\end{align}
$$

Peter Tamaroff

@robjohn Fresnel!

robjohn

2:24 AM

@PeterTamaroff So the integral of both sin and cos is $\sqrt{\pi/2}$

@PeterTamaroff There are no singularities, and the integral over the big quarter circle is $0$

Peter Tamaroff

@robjohn Aha...? =)

I can't believe this.

GOT was recorded, but the last few seconds got cut off.

Now I'll have to wait for tomorrow to watch those.

ARGGG!

I'm off to sleep now. If anyone has seen it, please tell me what happens after Jaime Lannister tells the guy that owns the bear "You'll have to kill me."

$\uparrow$ STAR THAT! =D

ItsMitch

I need someone to walk me through the answer for this one.

"Show that the height above the ground of an object thrown upward from a point $s_{0}$ meters above the ground with an initial velocity of $v_{0}$ meters per second is given by the function $f(t)=-4.9t^2+v_{0}+s_{0}$

anon

2:40 AM

show that $f(0)=s_0$, $f'(0)=v_0$, and $f''(0)=-4.9$. (also, you mean $f(t)=-4.9t^2+v_0t+s_0$)

ItsMitch

yes

continue

yup I missed the t

anon

that's it.

ItsMitch

lol

anon

err, 'cept I meant $f''=-9.8$ identically

ItsMitch

but walk me through it.

anon

2:43 AM

just did.

ItsMitch

why is f prime prime of (o) -9.8?

anon

well, what's f''?

or are you asking why we need to show that?

(those are two different questions)

ItsMitch

gimmme a sec

woops

The question is asking to prove that the function will give me the the height.

anon

mmhmm

ItsMitch

still dont get it

anon

2:47 AM

the position (which is the height) will have acceleration a constant 9.8 downwards due to gravity, which is to say that f''(t)=-9.8 for all t. the position at time 0 is $s_0$, which means $f(0)=s_0$, and the velocity at time $0$ is $v_0$, which means $f'(t)=v_0$.

show that the function $-4.9t^2+v_0t+s_0$ has those three properties and you're done, because those three properties characterize the position/height function uniquely.

ItsMitch

but wouldn't I have to prove that the function gives me only height. ie f(t)=some distance?

anon

what do you mean by "only" height?

what is the difference between height and only height?

ItsMitch

well if I plug 5 (seconds) I will get the result in height, in this case I wil get Xmeters

Alex Becker

@anon I think he might be confused about units

Babak S.

Hi everybody. :-)

Alex Becker

2:50 AM

@BabakS. Hi

ItsMitch

@babaks hey

Babak S.

Who knows what does a circle look like when we are working in Half plane of Poincare?

anon

by circle do you mean "loci of points equidistant from a given point"?

ItsMitch

the way I understand it is: prove to me that when you enter a a time in seconds in this function you will get meters.

Babak S.

Yes dear anon. @anon

anon

2:53 AM

(blah time unit)^2 * (blah meters / time unit^2) = blah meters, etc.

Babak S.

I think it is just two points equidistant from a given point

Alex Becker

@ItsMitch With units, the function is $-4.9m/s^2 * t^2 + v_0t + s_0$ where $v_0$ is in m/s and $s_0$ is in meters

anon

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_half-plane_model#Special_curves

Alex Becker

@ItsMitch What you need to understand is how taking a derivative effects the units.

ItsMitch

maybe its a dumb question, but where am i taking a derivative?

anon

2:55 AM

to compute f' and f''

ItsMitch

but why am I computing that?

im sorry man Im dumb

anon

8 mins ago, by anon

the position (which is the height) will have acceleration a constant 9.8 downwards due to gravity, which is to say that f''(t)=-9.8 for all t. the position at time 0 is $s_0$, which means $f(0)=s_0$, and the velocity at time $0$ is $v_0$, which means $f'(t)=v_0$.

8 mins ago, by anon

show that the function $-4.9t^2+v_0t+s_0$ has those three properties and you're done, because those three properties characterize the position/height function uniquely.

Babak S.

@anon: Thanks for your help. I missed that link.

anon

although I should have said $f'(0)=v_0$ instead of $f'(t)=v_0$

Babak S.

@anon: Are you there :-)

anon

3:05 AM

mmhmm

Ethan

@anon If I have a proposition $p$ whose truth either imply's the truth or false of $q$, how would I express this property between $p$ and $q$

I know I asked you practically the same question a while back, but I am now more comfortable with what I am asking

Say the proposition $p$ is Bob eats a pineapple

And the proposition $q$ is sara died

bob eating a pineapple wouldn't have any effect on the truth or false of sara's death

so they would not satisfy this property

anon

for any two propositions $p$ and $q$, either $p\implies q$ or $p\implies \neg q$, it's called material implication

there's a zillion questions on main about material implication and why it's truth-functional instead of being determined by the semantic content of the propositions being related

Ethan

would it be the (rule of inference) one?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_implication_(disambiguation).

anon

no, it's the truth-functional one (the one that depends only on truth values, not meaning), the connective

Babak S.

I read that article, but I see we have two distance function for that model. One is regarded for two points which are on a vertical line and second is considered for two points of another forms. Can we say that in these two cases of points, we have just one form defining that circle? Thanks

anon

3:09 AM

what you're talking about, where the meaning of the propositions is taken into account (roughly), is logical entailment

@BabakS. use the distance metric here for instance, defined for any two points on $\frak h$.

look at {x: dist(x,a)=R} for some fixed a,R, then rewrite the equation on the inside if you wish

Babak S.

@anon: Thanks. :-)

Ethan

@anon I am having trouble reading the articles on wikipedia if the truth or false of a proposition $q$ is a consequence of the truth of $p$, then how would I say in words this relation

$q$ is a consequence of $p$?

anon

just say $q$ follows from $p$. why are you worrying so much about this?

Ethan

@anon I need to be more precise then that

I am sorry for bugging you

anon

well, what do you mean by one truth value being a consequence of another?

you could say $q$ is determined by $p$ I suppose

I didn't ask for an example

I wanted an operating definition

Ethan

3:21 AM

If $p$, then either $p\implies q$ or $p\implies \neg q$

for some propositions $p$ and $q$

ItsMitch

@anon back to my question, I think I'm understanding. But if you had to show how you arrived at the answer how would u write it. Cause I think thats where I'm getting confused. The question is asking to 'show', so how I do 'show' it?

Ethan

the truth/false of $q$ is solely dependent on $p$

anon

@ItsMitch to show that f(t) gives the height at time t, you show that it satisfies all of the properties that the height function would have, and I gave you the three characteristics to check.

@Ethan that's true for any two propositions $p$, $q$, even if they are completely unrelated

ItsMitch

ahahahahaha I got it.

of course. thanks a lot!!

anon

mmhmm

Ethan

3:24 AM

@anon but $p$ is implying $q$

That is given $p$ we know weather $q$ or $\neg q$

@anon here anon can I tell you the exact problem

anon

I don't know, can you? :)

Ethan

@anon Define

$$
1_{\text{p}} \stackrel{}{=}
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if p} \\
0 & \text{if } \neg \text{p}
\end{cases}$$

I am trying to justify the spliting of the sum

$$\sum_{p\in Q}1_p=\sum_{p\in Q}_{p\implies A}1_p+\sum_{p\in Q}_{p\implies \neg A}1_p$$

anon

is Q a set of propositions?

Ethan

yes

A is also a proposition

anon

well, I will use Iverson bracket notation

$$\sum_p [p]=\sum_p [p]([p\implies A]+[p\implies \neg A])=\left([p\implies A]\sum_p[p]\right)+\left([p\implies\neg A]\sum_p[p]\right)=\sum_{p\implies A}[p]+\sum_{p\implies \neg A}[p] $$

and $[p]=[p]([p\implies A]+[p\implies\neg A])$ for any propositions $p,A$ follows from a quick brute force / truth table check

ItsMitch

3:30 AM

oh snap, I forgot I skipped an exercise.

Ethan

@anon but don't I need more restriction on $p$ to say that $p\implies A$ or $p\implies \neg A$

anon

you don't need to ponder philosophical quandries about truth-functionality, material implication, logical entailment, languages and semantics etc. to prove a formula that involves purely truth-functional computations

ItsMitch

I know ethan helped me with this one but I didn't get it. So here I go again.

Ethan

It wouldn't make sense to say "me eating a cabage implies someone will die" or "me eating a cabage implies someone will not die"

Because me eating a cabage has nothing to do with the death of anyone

anon

@Ethan no, that holds for all $p$ and $A$ (unless you meant exclusive or)

@Ethan again, whether or not $p\implies q$ has nothing to do with what $p$ and $q$ mean

Ethan

3:33 AM

P implies Q?

anon

it depends purely on the truth values of $p$ and $q$. it does not matter whether they propositions are related in any way, conceptually.

Ethan

doesn't that mean if $p$ then $q$

anon

@Ethan mathworld.wolfram.com/Implies.html

for background reading, see math.stackexchange.com/questions/48161/…

ItsMitch

the rate of growth is known, it is $\frac{dP}{dt}=k\sqrt{t}$
population is P.
Initial size is 500, after 1 day (time t is in days) population is 600.
Now what I have tried is taking the integral of $\frac{dP}{dt}=k\sqrt{t}$ which is $k\cdot\frac{2}{3}\cdot\sqrt{t^3}$ but when I plug 500 as K and 1 as t, I don't get 600, so this can't be the right.

anon

why are you plugging in 500 for K?

ItsMitch

3:38 AM

cause it's the initial population

anon

no, K is not the initial population

the initial population is the population at time 0, i.e. P(0)

you get $\color{Red}{P(t)}=k\cdot\frac{2}{3}t^{3/2}+\color{Red}C$. at time $0$ this says $500=0+C$. at time $1$ day this says $600=k\cdot\frac{2}{3}\cdot1+C$. Now solve for $C$ and $k$.

Faust7

holy shiet man u been on that problem for like 4 hours?

anon

you get C=500 and k=150 hence $P=100t^{3/2}+500$.

Ethan

@anon I am really sorry, I have read your comments and the definition on wolfram, but I don't understand how the truth of the proposition $p\implies q$ was determined by the truth values of $p$ and $q$ here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/48161/….

anon

the truth value of $p\implies q$ is determined by the truth value of $p$ and $q$ in the way specified in the truth table. it's the same truth table in both the wolfram article and the link, so they're saying the same exact thing.

Ethan

3:51 AM

How is it made? How is the truth or false of $p$ and $q$ resulting in truth values for $p\implies q$

anon

if p and q are both true, then $p\implies q$ is true. if p is true and q is false, then $p\implies q$ is false. if p is false and q is true, then $p\implies q$ is true. if p is false and q is false, then $p\implies q$ is true. that's what the truth table says.

ItsMitch

Thanks guys!!! Aw man, I need to practice more word problems. It's just that I hate them so much.

Ethan

Yes I understand what it says, but how can this be derived based on the definition of $p\implies q$

ItsMitch

Alright guys, time to sleep. G'nite!!

anon

@Ethan that IS the definition of $p\implies q$

Ethan

3:58 AM

@anon So that definition of $p\implies q$ wouldn't coincide with the normal spoken definition of implication?

If jhon is dead, and bob ate a rock, it would be ok to say "bob eating a rock implies jhon is dead"

anon

yes

dwi

2

Ethan

But that statement is gibberish, why define such a notion then

anon

because it works

Ethan

nvm

anon

it allows us to express a vast array of logical claims that turn up frequently in our everyday mathematical reasoning

Ethan

4:05 AM

Is there some way to express the sort of implication I am reffering too

anon

logical entailment

Gustavo Bandeira

4:27 AM

@Ethan A friend pointed me to this when I spoke about our conversation last time.

Ethan

I don't have enough knowledge on the scientific discipline on which it regaurds to understand the thought experiment

Gustavo Bandeira

@Ethan You should read Popper's the logic of scientific discovery.

It's a nice book.

Ethan

I would go further to say I don't understand any of the science on which it is based upon, sense I am not even sure what it is

Gustavo Bandeira

@Ethan You need the magnets.

anon

you'll have to ask icp about those

Ethan

4:45 AM

In general I try not to talk about anything "deep" unless I really know what I am saying, not to say I don't do this with everything I say, but giving out opinions freely on controversial topics, highly disciplined areas of science, or anything else when you have limited knowledge gives off an aurora of stupidity imo.

anon

aurora of stupidity, I like it

user1

I don't think one should pretend they have any authority on topics they don't understand, but I really cannot see a reason why merely talking about them is stupid.

Ethan

Like trying to quote Gandhi or Martin Luther king in an english paper

@user1 I didn't say it was stupid, but it will surely make you look stupid to most

user1

@Ethan If that is true, then there is no point in having a conversation about it (no gain in understanding for either party), so talking about such topics really would be stupid.

Ethan

@user1 Yes

user1

4:54 AM

If I were to talk about blackholes (which I know nothing about), I would hope to be conversing with someone knowledgeable about the subject who would find me ignorant but not stupid.

Ethan

I am saying that if you are going to quote big names or talk about big theorys you should know what your saying

If I miss quote my garbage man, its no big deal

If I miss quote Martin luther king more people would probably care

user1

@Ethan I completely agree that you should not quote things you do not understand unless you believe the person you are talking to will help you understand it.

I also think that saying the little one knows and ignoring the fact that they do not know very much is stupid.

Ethan

what?

user1

@Ethan I think this is what you were getting at. Trying to show off by talking about big theories is going to backfire quickly when you do not know them.

Ethan

Yes that is a good summary

I was also saying quoting big names too lol

but yes

Not neccisarly even trying to show off (but this is probably the only reason most people would)

Transcript for

$Mathematics$ Mathematics