You must log in or # to comment.
sado-mathochist
Well done, truly
Thado-mathocist. The real chad all along.
It makes me wonder if somewhere out there in a multiverse, a community of lisping incels all collectively draw the chad wojak as as an aramaic looking dude.
Is anyone doing anything tonight?
no, d…do you have a plan?
Something something distance calls for norm, not just squares.
||i||² + ||1||² = 2
Imagining your death. :P
But seriously, it’s perfectly sensible when remember that i is just the mathematical representation of “left turn”, just like -1 is the mathematical representation of “go backwards”-- and as we know, two left turns sends you backwards. So think about this triangle in the following way:
Imagine you are a snail, starting at the origin. Now imagine that you walk forward 1 step along the horizontal line. Then you turn 90° to the left to start walking along the vertical line, but then, because you need to walk i steps along this line you take another 90° turn to the left, which means that you are now walking backwards and you end up back at the origin. How far away from the origin are you? Zero steps.
This one made me laugh almost as much as the OP. Thank you!
NGL, this is hot.
I’m a mechanical engineering student with a math minor and I’m a switch so yeah, I’d take either side of this
operative?
Also mathematicians use i for imaginary, engineers use j. The story does not add up. I have never seen a single mathematician use j for imaginary.
As an EE, I used both. Def not a mathematician though. Fuck that, I just plug variables into programs now.
I have both mechanical and electrical backgrounds. MEs like I, EEs prefer j
imaJinary
TIL engineers can’t spell for shit.
Engineer here: mostly use i, but have seen j used plenty. First time I saw j used was by a maths professor.
Interesting I never saw j from a maths person. Friends (from a decade ago!) in electronics eng dep said they use j because i was reserved for current. perhaps the latter depends on the department.
I think rather
d/dxis the operator. You apply it to an expression to bind free occurrences ofxin that expression. For example,dx²/dxis best understood asd/dx (x²). The notation would be clear if you implement calculus in a program.If not fraction, why fraction shaped?
If you use exterior calculus notation, with d = exterior derivative, everything makes so much more sense
I just think of the definition of a derivative.
dis just an infinitesimally small delta. Sody/dxis literally justlim (∆ -> 0) ∆y/∆x. which is the same aslim (x_1 -> x_0) [f(x_0) - f(x_1)] / [x_0 - x_1].Note:
∆ -> 0isn’t standard notation. But writing∆x -> 0requires another step of thinking:y = f(x)therefore∆y = ∆f(x) = f(x + ∆x) - f(x)so you only need∆xapproaching zero. But I prefer thinkingd = lim (∆ -> 0) ∆.
This is the kind of brat I can get behind. 😏
😏
Why would a mathematician use j for imaginary numbers and why would engineer be mad at them?
The only thing I can think of is that the OP studied electrical engineering at some point. But it’s a 4chan story so probably fake anyway.
fake and gay?
Better plot than 50 Shades of Grey
hehe plot. getit? math and graphs and shit
Lmfao kill yourself
$\int dx f(x)$ is standard notation for physicists
But the post says before the integral, so I understand what they did would be $dx \int f(x)$, which is disgusting
They both bottoms.
I love how that wannabe 4chan nerd just got outnerded in the comment section
Hum… I don’t think the integral “operator” applies by multiplication.
You can put the dx at the beginning of the integral, but not before it.
Physicists be like: whitness me
Nobody on your link is treating the integral “operator” as multiplicative.
dx \int f(x)is blatantly different from\int f(x) dx
If you were using nonstandard analysis with dx an infinitesimal you could put it outside I guess. Maybe with differential forms too?
Switch it with a summation operator and see if it makes sense. The problem isn’t the operation by itself, but the fact that the operator implies an argument application, like a function.
In the case of dx as an infinitesimal it makes sense. You are making a sum of all the values of the function in the integral range and multiplying with a constant dx.
In the context of differential forms, an integral expression isn’t complete without an integral symbol and a differential form to be integrated.
Physicist behavior
Gods I wish I had a top to troll like this
Imagine a top that isn’t math brained, giving you so much more opportunities to troll before they find out…and then when they do learn something you have been trolling them…
No, in my experience people like that just end up trolling me because they have no frame of reference and don’t care about reality. You can’t troll somebody with math if they reject the idea of learning anything about or using math.
I can see that.
I did mean someone not learned already, not someone that doesn’t care to learn but I will concede the point now that you pointed out the flaws
if you have more opportunities to troll, then that’s also more room for disappointment as well, I guess I was thinking in terms of intensity more than opportunities. Thanks
Thank you for the belly laugh!
