"Did you know: The Sun is the brightest star by apparent visual magnitude (V = −26.74). wikipedia.org"
Who'd a thunk it? Thanks Google.
Who'd a thunk it? Thanks Google.
If you hadn't noticed, this is Forum 2.0
Started by Legend, Sep 02, 2014, 07:17 PM
previous topic - next topic0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"Did you know: The Sun is the brightest star by apparent visual magnitude (V = −26.74). wikipedia.org"Well most people don't even know the sun is star so...
Who'd a thunk it? Thanks Google.
| VizionEck Cube Royale is releasing this year "I'm Mike Armbrust" -Me |  |  |
Well most people don't even know the sun is star so...Good point....
| VizionEck Cube Royale is releasing this year "I'm Mike Armbrust" -Me | | |
Doing math in math class:Which is why pure maths is dumb.
"huh? You can't just assume 2+2=4. You have to show that it's true, first!"
Doing math in Physics class:
"You should have assumed that f(x) has the following form, to show that [f(x),Af(x)] is equal to [Af(x),f(x)]"
I like pure math.We can't be friends anymore
We can't be friends anymoreThat's because we're best friends.
I like pure math.I love the puzzle of it. It's really fun developing your own solutions and methods (even if they were already discovered hundreds of years ago)
Which is why pure maths is dumb.Lots of people make it dumb but the concept is awesome!
| VizionEck Cube Royale is releasing this year "I'm Mike Armbrust" -Me | | |
I love the puzzle of it. It's really fun developing your own solutions and methods (even if they were already discovered hundreds of years ago)Nope. Why try and prove something which everyone knows is true already, and has been proven by other people before in the same/ different ways. Its a complete waste of time. Its only useful if its proving/ discovering something new, but I doubt that's ever going to happen again with pure maths, for anything really significant anyway.
Lots of people make it dumb but the concept is awesome!
I love the puzzle of it. It's really fun developing your own solutions and methods (even if they were already discovered hundreds of years ago)There's all kinds of puzzles, and weird patterns. And you have to solve the puzzle of why those patterns exist.
Nope. Why try and prove something which everyone knows is true already, and has been proven by other people before in the same/ different ways. Its a complete waste of time. Its only useful if its proving/ discovering something new, but I doubt that's ever going to happen again with pure maths, for anything really significant anyway.
There's all kinds of puzzles, and weird patterns. And you have to solve the puzzle of why those patterns exist.Yeah I know that a lot of it is useful, but I'm talking more about university / college level stuff than cutting edge research.
Plus, you can build stuff!
For realsies, there's a lot of big new math discoveries! Fermat's last theorem was only discovered in 1994. The poincare' conjecture was also proven in 2006.
There are lots of big math problems like Riemann's hypothesis, P vs NP, etc; that still need solving.
Math is all about puzzles. Some of those puzzles have huge implications for things like physics, computer science. Some of them are just interesting in their own right.
Some of them are interesting in their own right, then 50 years later we find out they have applications in other fields.
Making connections is fun, regardless of who did it before you.
Yeah I know that a lot of it is useful, but I'm talking more about university / college level stuff than cutting edge research.Well, at that level, the fun is more about the beauty of math. And seeing how stuff fits together.
I just don't like it at all, and its extremely far from being fun.Well, I don't think you've even really done any math I'd consider fun anyways.
