| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Zetsubou Corp
   |
Posted - 2009.02.26 18:41:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Tractus Vesica
Originally by: mercyonman
Edited by: mercyonman on 26/02/2009 01:23:29
i have nothing to give i was just wondering if this was correct on multiplying polynomials
question: (-r+7)(2r^2-r-9)
answer:-2r^3 + 15r^2 + 2r - 63
2^2=2 with the power of 2 (^2 is the multiplying of the exponent by 2 times)
I loath mathetmatics in any form...especially algebra.
English and history ftw. 
Maths is the fundamental basis for the totality of human knowledge, even English and history. Saying you hate maths is like saying you hate knowledge.
I'm a mathematician, so I may be slightly biased here.
____________________
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 09:09:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Zyck
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Maths is the fundamental basis for the totality of human knowledge, even English and history. Saying you hate maths is like saying you hate knowledge.
I'm a mathematician, so I may be slightly biased here.
To be fair, math is incredibly tedious and boring.
I've taken enough of it that could have easily had a math minor with maybe 2 more classes, and I hated almost all of it.
No it's not! If you find it tedious and boring, you're being taught wrong. Some of the concepts I came across studying maths were some of the most beautiful and elegant constructs I have ever seen. Seeing simple set-ups such as z|->z^2+1 in C produce a result of infinite complexity like the Mandelbrot set. Imagining continuous curves that are nowhere smooth. Playing with 4, 5, 6... dimensional non-orientable manifolds like a Klein bottle.
Maybe I'm just weird, but I can't see how anyone can find that boring.
____________________
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 18:37:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Tractus Vesica
Of course math is necessary, and the foundation for basic creations and constructions. However, that does not mean I like it any more, and I'm a historian, so I know about how much math you need to know in order to be succsessful in the study of historical texts...If you know what 2+2= you should be fine.
You're assuming maths is just numbers. It is not. As a historian, you must build up a picture of past events. So you must use your available evidence and facts you take for granted (like axioms in maths), and follow logical steps to build up an idea of what might have happened with whatever historical thing you're looking at. You'll also be interested in how each event fits neatly and possibly leads into the next to form a certain pattern. That is maths. Whether you like it or not, pretty much anything you do is applied maths.
____________________
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 21:22:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Kakuremichi
*grumbles about induction*
Induction is brilliant; you can prove anything with it.
Example: ask anyone who agrees with your opinion to raise their hand. Ah! Someone raised their hand. At least one person agrees, so by induction, everyone agrees. QED.
That was kind of a recurring joke at uni... geeky, I know. 
____________________
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 21:50:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Kakuremichi
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Originally by: Kakuremichi
*grumbles about induction*
Induction is brilliant; you can prove anything with it.
Example: ask anyone who agrees with your opinion to raise their hand. Ah! Someone raised their hand. At least one person agrees, so by induction, everyone agrees. QED.
That was kind of a recurring joke at uni... geeky, I know.
YOU HAVEN'T PROVED IT FOR Kth AND (K+1)th TERM, YOU ARE LIVING AN UNPROVEN FALLACY 
Assume that k people agree with you. But trivially, you yourself must agree with yourself, so that makes k+1 people agreeing with you. Thus, proof by induction is complete. 
____________________
|
| |
|