« first day (3379 days earlier)      last day (1552 days later) » 
03:00 - 20:0020:00 - 00:00

3:05 AM
@JMac Ah ok
 
 
3 hours later…
5:42 AM
@amanuel2 if your equation is y = d cos(ωt) then the maximum value of y is +d and the minimum is -d, so the distance between the maximum and minimum values is 2d. But in your diagram this distance is just d. That's why you need y = ½d cos(ωt).
 
6:32 AM
I just attended a seminar on string theory for a general physics and mathematics audience, and have some lingering questions I couldn't resolve with the speaker.
He said that strings/particles can localize (as in have their wavefunction over space collapse to a point) inside the holes in a topological manifold, in the same way a particle in an infinite square well can localize to some point inside that well. I don't understand how a particle can localize to a point that is outside the manifold it exists on?? I would think this would be like the infinite square well particle localizing to ou
I'm new here (to the chat), by the way. Nice to meet you all? :) :) Please let me know right away if I'm breaking any of the status quos / am an irritant in any way.
 
0
Q: Serially down voted of my old question

Yuvraj Singh...I am banned from asking question on the main site due to previous four questions, I wrote them when I just joined the site it almost 1 year ago, but in recent days I am getting down vote on my question everyday I get at least two Deon votes on my question, and down voter give no reason for down v...

 
 
1 hour later…
7:49 AM
@perilousGourd Well, you shouldn't take things said to a general audience about how string theory works literally. It's technically more like this: The "holes" are associated to compactly supported harmonic forms (Poincare duality in DeRham cohomology) and you can expand a field in terms of these as a sort of mode expansion
So you get modes - which we typically associate with particles, strings and branes, depending on the dimension - the are localised "around" the cycle in homology associated to a hole. (intuitively, for a missing point, this cycle is a small sphere around the missing point, but don't take this literally, either)
Also, welcome to chat :)
 
8:04 AM
morning
 
Calm down
Nothing that exciting happened yet!
 
I SAID, MORGEN HAIGEN
 
I now have a book by every major GR theorist lady
All of them French, for some reason
I guess Marie Curie inspired a lot of people here!
 
9:04 AM
NAIN
FRIHGEN SHTAIGEN
ZAICHIBUR GORDENSHTIEFT
yes
i'm secretly german
 
Why General Relativity got no succesful successors after Einstein? You see many people got inspired and worked on QM but very few people are known to have done any work on GR, I know only one of them i.e Kurt Godel
 
General relativity was in a way too successful.
 
Wow!
 
It works so well that to date there has been no experimental evidence for any other theory.
 
There were plenty of successful successors after Einstein
You may just not know them
 
9:11 AM
Who?
 
ie Penrose, Geroch, Hawking
 
And general relativity is actually a really simple theory. I know it looks complicated, but it belongs to a class of theories called metric theories, and of all these it is the simplest.
 
General relativity is hella complicated
says I
but then again basically every theory is, if you go down far enough
 
That means it's actually quite hard to modify general relativity without introducing all sorts of side effects that should be easily detectable. And since they haven't been detected it rules out most of the proposed modifications.
 
Also really I wouldn't say that Einstein's version of GR was the one we have today
It is in the broad sense of the field equations being the same
But there was a lot of things we didn't understand about it
 
9:14 AM
@JohnRennie Newton says "Absolute space, in its own nature, wirhout relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable"
I don't why there is so much fuss about space. What's the problem?
 
it's bad.
 
What is bad? That QUOTE?
 
Space.
Space bad.
 
Oh!
 
@Knight he's being facetious, as I'm sure you have spotted :-)
 
9:18 AM
Yes
 
Any moment now he'll be telling you that space needs to be spanked and sent to its room without any dinner :-)
 
I have a plan
To destroy space
 
Can I know from a simple example about why there is a fuss over absolute space and relative space? And why Newton needed to make that statement?
 
@Knight until Newton no-one had thought of space in that way.
It seems obvious now, but it didn't seem obvious in the 17th century.
 
that way means?
 
9:21 AM
Newton was basically defining space as a manifold, and I'm not sure the concept existed back then.
 
@JohnRennie I don't know about that
 
What is manifold?
 
"Is space relative or absolute" is an old debate
 
In mathematics, a manifold is a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space near each point. More precisely, each point of an n-dimensional manifold has a neighborhood that is homeomorphic to the Euclidean space of dimension n. In this more precise terminology, a manifold is referred to as an n-manifold. One-dimensional manifolds include lines and circles, but not figure eights (because no neighborhood of their crossing point is homeomorphic to Euclidean 1-space). Two-dimensional manifolds are also called surfaces. Examples include the plane, the sphere, and the torus, which can...
 
although this has had a lot of different meanings over time
If you want to know the dealio of space in general relativity, I recommend looking up the hole argument
In general relativity, the hole argument is an apparent paradox that much troubled Albert Einstein while developing his famous field equations. Some philosophers of physics take the argument to raise a problem for manifold substantialism, a doctrine that the manifold of events in spacetime is a "substance" which exists independently of the metric field defined on it or the matter within it. Other philosophers and physicists disagree with this interpretation, and view the argument as a confusion about gauge invariance and gauge fixing instead. == Einstein's hole argument == In a usual field equation...
It's one of those important GR thing you don't really read much about in textbooks
 
9:24 AM
Well relative position is the main cause of debate over what space is?
 
basically?
 
Is it about where the origin is?
 
No.
Several cities have been given the nickname "Center (or Centre) of the Universe". In addition, several fictional works have described a depicted location as being at the center of the universe. Modern models of the Universe suggest it does not have a center, unlike previous systems which placed Earth (geocentrism) or the Sun (heliocentrism) at the center of the Universe. == Nicknames of places == === Asia === Wudaokou, Beijing (a nickname) === Europe === Perpignan (France) : Salvador Dali considered its train station as the center of the Universe Wolverhampton, UK : Sir Terry Wogan re...
it's here, btw
 
:)
Is the debate of space about where we should consider the origin of system? Or something else.
 
It's about whether "space" is a real entity, or simply a relation between objects
 
9:31 AM
Okay
Means the question is: whether the space exists or not if we were to have only one object in whole universe?
Am I right? @Slereah
 
Eeeeh
I would probably recommend you read something on the topic, if you're really interested
 
@Knight you have to wonder whether this is a useful discussion. Philosophers may worry about whether space actually exists or not, mainly because it gives them something to do.
 
I know that you must be feeling I'm working day and night for GR and this fellow wants to learn it in one go and that also on a chat, Geez
 
Physicists use mathematical models not philosophical abstractions.
 
@JohnRennie I mean, if we're gonna discuss usefulness
I'm not sure GR would come on top, either
@JohnRennie Have you not read the Einstein papers :p
there's a lot of philosophy in various GR papers
You kind of have to discuss it a bit, as the theory was so weird
 
9:42 AM
After seeing what the Einstein papers did to Duffield I'm now scared of approaching them :-)
 
Well as I said, the theory changed a lot from its origins :p
I do actually feel that Duffield fell for some of the traps of that era
ie : Duffield doesn't really understand diffeomorphism invariance
 
And while Einstein was undoubtably a genius he did talk bollocks at times.
 
and that was one of the big hurdle of early GR
If you want a nice book on spacetime ontology and other philosophy business, I recommend "The philosophy of space and time", by Reichenbach
it's a bit old but it's a nice introduction to it
 
Why most of philosophers were inherently rich? Did they become philosopher because they didn't have to bother about square meal?
 
Are they?
Also if true, probably
 
9:46 AM
Until recently pretty much all the scientists were people who didn't have to wrk for a living.
 
but I'm guessing most modern day philosophers are just getting by on a professor's paycheck
 
It's only recently that we started paying scientists just to be scientists.
 
well, not quite, but these days it's a profession
you don't have to find a local warlord to pay you
It's not the middle ages when you need the Khan to ask the local wizards why is sky big
 
That's true. A lot of famous scientists and mathematicians had some aristocrat supporting them.
 
The Ptolemy were way into it
They did want to know why sky big
Although to be fair, there were still a lot of science jobs even in fairly old eras
it just exploded with the industrial revolution
ie Galileo working on ballistics for war machines
The aristos may not care about the bigness of space, but they did care about sending big rocks on other people
"Galileo supplemented his relatively low income by teaching mathematics, mechanics, and especially fortifications to private students - some of whom he boarded in his own house. In 1599, he took an artisan, Marcantonio Mazzoleni, into his house as an instrument maker. Mazzoleni's chief task was to construct geometrical and military compasses, computation devices that Galileo would then sell to his private students."
Galileo gotta get paid
 
10:03 AM
@JohnRennie Yeah, just like Newton's gravity.
 
@NovaliumCompany which took three hundred years before GR superceded it!
 
To be fair, a lot of people thought Newtonian mechanics was flawed, even before GR
there were many signs of it being wrong
I actually wonder if the low energy version of the Schwarzschild metric wasn't found by accident in the 19th century
Throwing random terms to try to fix Newtonian gravity was fairly common
And adding some $r^{-3}$ term doesn't seem outside the range of possibilities
Although whether it was used to fix Mercury's perihelion or another aspect, who knows
 
10:25 AM
@JohnRennie Just like something else will supersede GR after a hundred years or so. The cycle has been repeating for all of history. Just when we think we know what's "actually going on" we find out that's not the case. Anyways, I love the fact that we build on previous knowledge. It shows that we are making progress (towards some kinda "universal truth" I guess)
 
@NovaliumCompany some form of quantum gravity presumably.
 
Maybe it will turn out that spacetime is made of fruit
We won't know 'til the future!
 
It's important to understand that older theories are not invalidated by newer ones. All theories are approximations that work in some circumstances but fail in others.
Newtonian mechanics/gravity still works very well in all but extreme conditions.
Likewise if/when we manage to create a working theory of quantum gravity GR will still work well in all but even more extreme circumstances.
 
To quote Asimov
"when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
 
10:28 AM
@JohnRennie yeah
@Slereah So Asimov thinks that we have everything figured out? And to think that all of our theories might not be completely correct is wrong?
 
No, quite the opposite
It's more of a comment on "truth" versus usefulness of a theory
 
11:26 AM
0
Q: Learning from physics stack exchange

Yuvraj Singh...I tried physics stack exchange for learning a new topic, and it is good to learn topic with question and doubt of other and answer help you to learn some thing, so can anyone share his experience that how the stack exchange work as both book +teacher for them , so that I can too proceed in that w...

 
 
1 hour later…
12:43 PM
@FakeMod Maybe it just takes some time
 
1:15 PM
How can I better understand this statement: A person who has a good understanding of a particular field of study need not necessarily be good at teaching in the said field. By "good at teaching", I mean "a satisfactory level of teaching as experienced by the students."
This is a common sentiment shared by many and I've heard people pick examples of teachers that they have encountered during their academic career who fit this profile: They describe someone who has a very good research profile but is absolutely bad at teaching.
I'm unable to completely grasp the statement because I'm unable to see what stops someone who has good knowledge of a particular field from being a good teacher. What else does one need to teach "satisfactorily"?
The only reason I can think of is time. Maybe they don't want to put too much time on teaching as even teaching "satisfactorily" requires a good deal of preparation.
 
1:33 PM
Conveying the knowledge you have to other people is a skill which is entirely separate from acquiring or having that knowledge.
 
1:53 PM
It's not necessarily easy to put yourself back in the shoes of a person who doesn't know anything about the topic
many things are by that point obvious to you
 
2:04 PM
It is said that momentum and position are canonically conjugate pairs
We can prove the canonical conjugate fact from Poisson bracket
But using Poisson bracket we get {p,q}=-1
 
Well momentum is defined as the conjugate of position
it's not really a proof
 
Then why are they canonically conjugate? As the condition is {p,q}=1
So proving it is futile?
But wouldn't {p,q}=-1 contradict that they are canonically conjugate pairs???
 
No, because I think you're thinking of the wrong relation
The condition is $\{ q, p \} = 1$
 
Yes
 
As the Poisson bracket is $\{ f, g \} = - \{ g, f \}$, this is entirely fine
 
2:09 PM
And {q,p} turns out to be -1
 
It's not, see above
you wrote $\{ p, q \} = -1$
Which is the reverse condition
 
Yeah I wrote wrong, sorry
 
\begin{eqnarray}
\{ q, p \} &=& \frac{\partial q}{\partial q} \frac{\partial p}{\partial p} - \frac{\partial q}{\partial p} \frac{\partial p}{\partial q}\\
&=& 1 \cdot 1 - 0 \cdot 0\\
&=& 1
\end{eqnarray}
 
 
Are you sure you have the correct definition :
In mathematics and classical mechanics, the Poisson bracket is an important binary operation in Hamiltonian mechanics, playing a central role in Hamilton's equations of motion, which govern the time evolution of a Hamiltonian dynamical system. The Poisson bracket also distinguishes a certain class of coordinate transformations, called canonical transformations, which map canonical coordinate systems into canonical coordinate systems. A "canonical coordinate system" consists of canonical position and momentum variables (below symbolized by q...
 
2:16 PM
Um yeah?
 
It seems to me you inverted $p$ and $q$ in the derivatives in your case
 
But how do you decide? Whether to take p first or q first? I mean f and g are functions of both
 
The Poisson brackets are just a mathematical tool
Their precise definition doesn't matter.
You could take either convention, but whatever you do, you just have to keep them consistent
But then that means that everything that you do will differ from the standard definitions by a sign
 
So suppose you have that (q,p) are canonically conjugate pair then (p,-q) will be a canonically conjugate pair but not (-p,q)?
That is the convention is already decided by saying that {q,p}=1
 
2:32 PM
sign errors are tight
jet lag has me wakin up at 5 lool
 
I am so confused....
 
2:48 PM
it's just signs
+/- all the same difference
 
You define Poisson bracket such that {q,p}=1
ans stick to this definition for the rest of your calculations
 
yes
 
If you define {p,q}=1 then use this definition for the rest of the calculation
but if you want to compare your calculations to someone else’s calculations, you must see what your definitions are and how to translate from yours to theirs
 
I got something very important to discuss with you all
It's about using the misuse of spirituality by someone and hence affecting the lives of people whom I know and love.
 
I'm not sure this is the adequate venue for such a topic
 
2:55 PM
Yes, but here are the people whom I can trust and get some advice. I think he is on verge of hallucination.
 
uh...
I'm gonna second Slereah on this one
 
Thanks everyone!!
 
Okay, I too think that
 
3:23 PM
The period of a simple pendulum inside a stationary lift is T. If the lift accelerates downwards with an acceleration g/4.
So will g turn to g+g' or g-g'?
In the time period formula
g'=g/4
It will be g-g' right?
 
@Korra Would an object in the elevator feel more weight, or less weight?
 
Weight has nothing to do with the time period of pendulum.
 
@JMac I would say less
@AbhasKumarSinha yup
 
mass*
 
3:39 PM
@AbhasKumarSinha Weight absolutely does have something to do with it.
 
for a simple pendulum the mass cancels. But as you know, mass != weight :)
bowchicawowow
 
@JMac because of the acceleration right?
@JMac oh I got it! Less weight means less gravitational acceleration means it's g-g'
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Welcome back!
 
4:12 PM
Hello
I AM STEVE
FROM MINECRAFT
ok i need to stop
 
Hello STEVE. I am User from Hilbert Space
 
what is the name of the method that can generate approximate answer the schrodinger equation?
 
yes, but not what I was looking for.
 
@user3518839 I am Hilbert. So you are in my space.
@JohnRennie You are a great human being.
Btw, if not a secret, do you have kids?
 
4:26 PM
@PeterTeoh Hartree-Fock?
 
u are right also...but now I just managed to find the name I was looking for: Perturbation Theory. Thanks!!!
 
@JohnRennie dO yOu HaVe kIdz?
(sorry I don't know if you are ignoring me on purpose or just not seeing my msg :P)
 
I'm ignoring you on purpose.
 
Alright, sorry.
 
@JohnRennie What’s in the lunch?
 
4:33 PM
Chicken and brussel sprout risotto. Sometimes my culinary genius amazes even me :-)
 
@JohnRennie Can you send me some of that risotto
 
@NovaliumCompany I doubt it would survive the journey through the post :-)
 
Looks great!
 
@NovaliumCompany In any case I suspect it is ... erm ... an acquired taste :-)
I only made it because I had to use up the brussel sprouts because they were past their use by date.
 
4:45 PM
fig newtons
fig einsteins.
 
@JohnRennie Is that a wise choice though?
 
@user3518839 I quite like brussel sprouts. Traditionally British children are brought up to hate them, but somehow I escaped the programming.
 
@JohnRennie you must like them a lot then! Given that you’re braving through the expired use by date
 
I did enjoy the meal. The secret is to take care cooking the sprouts so they stay slightly crunchy. Cook them too long and they turn into mush.
 
I have never had them so I have no basis.
What’s their taste and texture like?
 
5:03 PM
@JohnRennie Supposedly they've been grown to be less bitter over the past ~20 years too.
 
@user3518839 That's really hard to describe. Tastewise they have a slightly bitter taste. Texture wise they are slightly crunchy in the way a raw carrot is crunchy, though not quite as hard as a raw carrot.
@JMac the taste certainly seems less aggressive than my memories of school dinners would suggest, though of course that could just mean my taste buds have dulled in the 40 years since then :-)
 
@JohnRennie I had always grown up being led to believe by the LYING MAINSTREAM MEDIA (lol) that brussels sprouts were nasty. Then my parents starting cooking them when I was a teen, and I realized they were actually pretty good. It's like broccoli; there's like some huge conspiracy to convince people they taste worse than they do.
 
@JMac Except I actually can't seem to like them
 
@AaronStevens How much does NASA pay you to say that?
 
@JMac They told me not to disclose that information
 
5:10 PM
@AaronStevens has become part of the LYING MAINSTREAM MEDIA I believe
 
I can see why NASA would try to avoid anyone eating brassicas before heading into space - in a small and poorly ventilated capsule.
 
Precisely, all scientists would like a controlled environment. Hehe
 
Brassicas contain a trisaccharide called raffinose that the human gut cannot digest, so it passes unchanged to the lower bowel where your gut flora goes whoopee.
 
5:27 PM
@JMac No, both broccoli and brussel sprouts are objectively terrible foods :P
Conversely, I firmly believe there's some conspiracy going on to convince people that mango actually tastes good.
 
@ACuriousMind Mango does taste good though
 
@ACuriousMind Your opinion differs from mine, therefore that is evidence that NASA has paid you off to say that. I agree with the mango thing; but presumably that's just a mislead NASA is planting so that I trust you.
 
@JMac You mean there are two people who don't like mango?
 
If it was bad they would have called it "Manstop"
4
 
That pun physically hurt me
 
5:30 PM
@JohnRennie I have no way of knowing. I can only assume everyone who disagrees with me is doing so as part of a conspiracy. Same for people who agree with me...
 
@ACuriousMind finger guns
 
To be fair some mangos can taste a bit like creosote. The ones imported to the UK generally have a milder flavour.
 
"Milder than creosote" - that sure sounds delicious!
 
@JohnRennie Yeah, there are some mangos that don't taste the best
 
I don’t like fibrous mangoes. They get stuck between teeth
 
5:37 PM
Speaking of mangoes, the tastiest one is langra.
There are lots of trees of this variety of mango around me and I enjoy them during monsoon!
 
In the UK the only mangos we get have been picked unripe then stuck in the hold of a ship for several weeks, and that doesn't do wonders for the flavour. I've had fresh mango in India and it is a different beast altogether.
 
@JohnRennie wish I could send some of them to you using teleportation though I am prohibited to do so!
 
Ah, those evil mainstream physicists have banned teleportation, right.
 
@ACuriousMind no this very universe is behind this. I wish there was a method to bypass it. Though who cares about wishes!
 
I’ve always wanted to know, do the English eat as much baked beans as shown by the media?
 
5:42 PM
Teleportation is real.
 
@JohanLiebert there are a number of delicious Indian foods that are hard to obtain or very expensive in the UK. Gulab jamun for example.
 
@JohnRennie have you tried Ras Malai? It's much more delicious 😋!
 
@user3518839 yes. Every supermarket in the UK has shelves full of tins of baked beans.
Actually I like baked beans, though I don't eat them that often.
@JohanLiebert no. I've had rasgulla, which Wikipedia claim is similar, and that was very nice.
 
@JohnRennie I would suggest you to make Gajar Ka Halwa. This is quite easy to make and delicious too!
 
I don't think anywhere in my town sells khoya.
Although my mother claims you can make a substitute by making a paste with powdered milk.
 
5:49 PM
@JohnRennie you can make all of this at home. All you need is milk and internet.
 
@JohnRennie that maybe substituted with condensed milk
 
@JohanLiebert And several hours to boil the milk down!
 
@JohnRennie yeah I forgot about that part.
Though what you get is worth the effort you put.
 
@JohanLiebert Have you ever tried chewing-gum after a soft drink? It feels like ... like you're flying
 
@Knight no I never did that. Though I would give it a shot when I get the chance.
 
6:01 PM
@JohanLiebert I think shots are given to... :)
 
@JohnRennie sir I got the answer through a comment!
Time reversal symmetry is sufficient. — Jon Custer 18 mins ago
 
6:16 PM
@AaronStevens Because the closure itself is an answer, too. — peterh - Reinstate Monica 6 mins ago
Am I missing something?
 
@AaronStevens I don't get what he's saying either. I think he meant "ironic", not sarcastic. That fits with that comment; though I don't actually see how it applies here. I don't think "it's not clear what you're asking" is an answer to OP's question, and even if it was, I wouldn't be able to tell because I find it unclear what they are asking...
 
@JMac Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
 
@AaronStevens @JMac Maybe this context helps: peterh has in the past repeatedly argued that closing and/or downvoting questions is evil and hurtful to the askers.
 
@ACuriousMind Ah ok.
 
6:32 PM
In completely unrelated news, floating point numbers suck.
 
@ACuriousMind I don't know, they seem to be keeping their head above the water at least
 
@AaronStevens You don't need to keep your head above water to float!
 
I'm trying to do geometry on a hex grid and this ugly $\sqrt{3}$ keeps showing up and makes converting to pixels annoyingly ugly
 
@JMac True, true
Linear algebra always messes with my brain. There are just so many ways to interpret/think about the same concept
@ACuriousMind You could be a part of that one group that thought the square root of 2 was evil
 
rob
6:51 PM
@AaronStevens There are people who believe otherwise?!?
 
Is there anywhere where I can see what university AI guys study?
 
@rob I know, crazy
 
Where on the internet can I learn AI and ML for free at a pretty high level?
sorry that's a stupid question
 
7:11 PM
Andrew Ng's courses on Coursera are free to audit I think
those are by far the best set of courses that I've come across so far :)
@NovaliumCompany there's many universities with AI related programs
 
no
no, no, NO
NO
f*ck universities
 
mmmk
 
sounds good
I haven't seen that one before
 
@AaronStevens Whenever I think about how matrices work, I can hear my school math teacher repeating, over and over, "The columns of the matrix are the images of the standard basis".
It's burnt into my brain
 
7:23 PM
that's true
It's good to be burned into your brain :)
 
Sure, it's just a bit unsettling how vivid the memory is :P
And that it requires conscious effort on my part to turn it off
 
lol
 
Could some of you watch this video and tell me what you think of it. As far as the multiverse is concerned?
 
can't, too scared
 
For some reason, I never got to the point where matrices "clicked" for me. Doing anything with them is very confusing for me, and I can never even remember how to multiply them. I don't know what it is about them, maybe I just never committed enough; but unless it's very obvious what it going on, matrix math is all just a mess in my head.
 
7:36 PM
I'm the same way with complex math
whenever a $z$ shows up my brain wants to rebel...
 
I never really had a problem with "complex" math; but the complex math I did was on the simple end of the scale.
 
@ACuriousMind Yep haha. I had a horrible linear algebra teacher, so that was never said in my class
@JMac The 3blue1brown video series on linear algebra is an incredible way to look at the intuition behind linear algebra
 
@AaronStevens My university linear algebra teacher was a stereotypical "eccentric genius" and it was great. He would come in, ramble about something, and then start going through a lecture, writing with his right hand and erasing with the left as he went. He taught DE too; and I learned a bunch of stuff and didn't even realize it until I was studying for the exam and random things he said in class would come back to me; even though it was nonsense at the time.
 
method of stationary phase...*shivers*
 
He had the knack of making things sound extremely confusing; but when you finally figured out where he was coming from, it usually made a lot of sense.
 
7:41 PM
interesting
 
@JMac My linear algebra and DE teacher didn't have a huge math education I don't think. Most of linear algebra was just spent on doing row reduction of matrices in various contexts
They were horrible classes
He did calc3 also
Basically the math subjects that are important for physics had the worst classes for me
He was let go right after I was done taking all the classes he had
 
@ScientistSmithYT Why are you sending me this? I don't exist.
 
@AaronStevens Of course, the way it always is.
 
then the actual mathematician professors picked up those classes
So yeah... I actually taught myself calc3 the summer before I had to take it, since I knew it was going to be awful
 
Are we really going to ignore the fact that scientists proved that nothing f*cking exists?
 
7:43 PM
I didn't have the time to do the same thing for linear algebra or DE though :(
 
what's calc3
 
the thing after calc2
 
Oh my, basically completely unrelated but I just remembered a hilarious anecdote. A prof comes in one morning and says "I might have to leave the lecture early, my wife is getting a checkup done (at a place ~30 minutes away). They told me I had to stay for when she was done, so if they call I might have to leave."
 
scientists don't generally work on ontology, that's more of a job for philosophers
 
Sure enough, they actually called halfway through the lecture, and we got to listen to his end of a clearly awkward conversation where the prof says "I just went out to get a coffee, be there in about 10 minutes". He left the notes with us to do our own lecture and then went to pick up his wife lol.
way to ruin my block of text!
 
7:47 PM
@ACuriousMind very helpful :P
 
@JMac Haha wow. That's funny. I don't think I would have the courage to do that
 
sorry, but it's my job to rueen it
 
Maybe calc3 is also an incompatible "better" version of calc2 that most people won't upgrade to because all their favourite libraries are still on calc2
 
@ScientistSmithYT Wanna discuss the video? It's mindblowing.
 
I wonder where else this 2/3 versioning problem is happening...
 
7:49 PM
If everything is subjective, changing my perception of the world, should change the world?
 
Everyone should just replace calc with the open source brute force methods instead.
 
I'll try imagining a bag of gold and see if it comes up on my desk.
 
srsly, it's likely the whole universe is quantized anyways so what's the point of calculus. Ain't no continuaa for limits
instead of doing a Riemann sum...just do a regular sum with really small intervals
wham-bam you don't need calculus anymore
 
Right. Aint not continuous so aint not calculus
I don't know if I over or under-negatived those phrases, but who cares.
 
I don't remember who here read Recursion: A Novel, but after watching that video about no objective reality existing, I'm inclined to build the machine stated in the book.
 
7:55 PM
I personally don't put much stock into videos with claims like "science says objective reality doesn't exist"; since usually they are actually referring to something very specific that doesn't really impact how we perceive an objective reality.
 
I know, but it's cool to think about it. It's cool to know that it has a chance of turning out that it's true.
 
03:00 - 20:0020:00 - 00:00

« first day (3379 days earlier)      last day (1552 days later) »