Jump to content


Photo

EJ's Remedial Education Program


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#41 decimus

decimus

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 180 posts

Posted 15 May 2006 - 08:58 AM

cross product dot product

I hate vectors. <_<

#42 Lailla

Lailla

    King Hippo

  • Guild Members
  • 512 posts

Posted 15 May 2006 - 02:06 PM

After doing a shitload of math in school, I am now seeing that an engineering job really only requires basic math. And even then, Start->run->calc.

Think about that while you slave over integration and Fourier transforms and shit. IT'S WORTHLESS. YAY.

#43 Toros

Toros

    King Hippo

  • Guild Members
  • 625 posts

Posted 15 May 2006 - 03:48 PM

No way, Fourier transforms are awsome for impressing your friends with knowledge of complex formulas and making really lame jokes about convolution.
This game sucks.

#44 Hanny

Hanny

    Von Kaiser

  • Allied Members
  • 95 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 01:34 AM

That long division gets me everytime.

I dislike polynomial long division in extreme cases.

#45 Slug

Slug

    Soda Popinski

  • Guild Members
  • 2,762 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 12:19 PM

After doing a shitload of math in school, I am now seeing that an engineering job really only requires basic math. And even then, Start->run->calc.

Think about that while you slave over integration and Fourier transforms and shit. IT'S WORTHLESS. YAY.

I started roofing houses with my father as a side-job when I was 14 to help ends meet. One day, I was ripping off an old roof and he was doing math on some materials. I was like, "What is that? Is that Calculus?" He was like, "Yep." I asked him if he ever used advanced math in his real job and he thought about it...then said nope.

"So you wrench on airplanes and fly all day on basic math concepts...but if you wanna roof a house in efficient manner, it takes calculus?". We looked at each other for a few seconds and then I was like "I'll be damned..." cause I didn't figure anyone used that crap outside of a lab or classroom at all.

#46 Judia

Judia

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 300 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 04:53 PM

Well, to be fair, Physics is basically just Math.

Biology is really Chemistry
Chemistry is really Physics (sup thermodynamics)
Physics is really Math.

Now, if I could get over the whole dissecting live animals thing, I might be able to have that Chemistry degree I set out for eleven years ago.

Good luck with that.
Sat my finals last year and about to have my viva for my MChem.
To err is human

#47 No Pants

No Pants

    Piston Honda

  • Guild Members
  • 168 posts

Posted 16 May 2006 - 05:05 PM

I dislike polynomial long division in extreme cases.

Polynomial long division is very useful if you're studying ring theory!

#48 Gonkish

Gonkish

    Soda Popinski

  • Guild Members
  • 4,441 posts

Posted 22 May 2006 - 02:56 AM

What the FUCK just happened here.

How can you help?
I can shoot things and then make my pet move toward them.


#49 Jaytan

Jaytan

    Bald Bull

  • Guild Members
  • 1,200 posts

Posted 22 May 2006 - 06:27 AM

After doing a shitload of math in school, I am now seeing that an engineering job really only requires basic math. And even then, Start->run->calc.

Think about that while you slave over integration and Fourier transforms and shit. IT'S WORTHLESS. YAY.

Do you find paintings to be worthless? Also what does your engineering job involve?

#50 digipak

digipak

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 17 July 2006 - 06:35 AM

a * a = 2 * a = 2a

thus

a * a = a * b (since a=b)

and

2a = ab
(as deenogger mentioned)

...

Let a = anything that's not 2. For example, let a = 6.

a * a = 6 * 6 = 36.

2a = 2 * 6 = 12.
Unless I'm missing something very very obvious, that's still a glaring problem, and the fact that you divide by zero is pretty much irrelevant. (not saying there isn't a legitimate proof that could be made to say 2=1 because you divide by zero, just saying, this ain't it.)

[sorry for the random bump. it was bothering me.]

#51 Energy

Energy

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 35 posts

Posted 17 July 2006 - 06:39 AM

How the fuck do I post how that's bothering me 2 months after the last post in this thread has been made within 4 minutes of you posting the same thing, digipak? :<

#52 rabbit

rabbit

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 17 July 2006 - 03:00 PM

a * a = 2 * a = 2a

thus

a * a = a * b (since a=b)

and

2a = ab
(as deenogger mentioned)

...

Let a = anything that's not 2. For example, let a = 6.

a * a = 6 * 6 = 36.

2a = 2 * 6 = 12.
Unless I'm missing something very very obvious, that's still a glaring problem, and the fact that you divide by zero is pretty much irrelevant. (not saying there isn't a legitimate proof that could be made to say 2=1 because you divide by zero, just saying, this ain't it.)

[sorry for the random bump. it was bothering me.]

a*a != 2a

a*a = a^2

So....


a^2 = a * b
a = b

No shennigans except bad math :P

#53 mekrith

mekrith

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 17 July 2006 - 03:04 PM

:words:

1 2 3 4 5
rogue rogue

#54 Mækk

Mækk

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 13 posts

Posted 28 October 2007 - 08:35 AM

2b=b

2=1


b could be zero; dividing by something that might be zero makes the argument void.

#55 Drunkmunky

Drunkmunky

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 81 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 04:09 AM

Havn't done maths since highschool, I loved to factor polynomials (I was a freaking machine at it), tried to do some basic maths for working out gear stat values yesterday. Took me ages to figure out values and shit... Maths hurts my head now days. Also don't ever try to do maths while drunk, it always ends badly.

#56 radicalthree

radicalthree

    Great Tiger

  • Guild Members
  • 841 posts

Posted 12 November 2007 - 01:09 PM

you morons

if a = b then a-b = 0 and division by the quantity (a-B) is therefore undefined

#57 giansm

giansm

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 1,084 posts

Posted 16 November 2007 - 11:41 PM

thank god this problem has finally been solved after two years

#58 Skjar

Skjar

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 07 March 2008 - 12:41 AM

Tell me why my genes like oreos

#59 DeeNogger

DeeNogger

    Mike Tyson

  • Allied Members
  • 10,838 posts

Posted 07 March 2008 - 06:52 AM

Tell me why my genes like oreos


Chances are good you just earned an infraction.

#60 Skjar

Skjar

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 12 March 2008 - 08:06 PM

As to the infraction - yes sir, and probably well deserved, but not for the reason that first comes to mind (stupid, meaningless, and off-topic). I was actually reading the first page of the discussion and hit this reductionist argument:

Reductionism in philosophy describes a number of related, contentious theories that hold, very roughly, that the nature of complex things can always be reduced to (explained by) simpler or more fundamental things. This is said of objects, phenomena, explanations, theories, and meanings. In short, it is philosophical materialism taken to its logical consequences.

Roughly this means that physics is based on mathematics, chemistry is based on physics, biology is based on chemistry, psychology and sociology are based on biology. The first of these are commonly accepted but the last step is very controversial and therefore the frontier of reductionism: evolutionary -psychology and -sociology vs. those who claim people have a soul or another quality that separates them from the material world. Reductionists believe that the behavioral-sciences should become a genuine scientific discipline by being based on genetic biology.

A very typical reductionistic book is 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. It argues that because genes are the fundamental elements of life, all life and all natural behavior can best be understood by studying genetic mechanisms. This way all life is best regarded as temporary accommodation and a reproduction device for the genes.


I know the post was 2+ years old, but I wanted to restart the discussion on reductionism. Are our genes responsible for all of our choices? If so, what benefit do my genes accrue from those choices? I used my appreciation for oreos as a (very silly, and uncontextualized) example of a small choice, one that I felt couldn't in any way benefit my genes, hoping someone would have a creative argument for why oreos are good for my genes, or how liking oreos could be reduced to another, different choice that clearly does benefit my genes.

Obviously, nobody was with me on the oreo comment, probably because of the YEARS between relevant posts, and the mathematical digression in the middle. Hindsight, and all that. If nobody's interested in the reductionism argument I'll let it go, but hot damn I wanted some more after reading the above quote.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users