If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The 11 most incredible beauties in the history of the Earth (SFW)   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 100
    More: Cool, special relativity, equations, strong forces, strong nuclear forces, quantum fluctuations, wave equation, Fordham University, physical system  
•       •       •

12623 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Feb 2013 at 12:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-03 12:09:33 PM
"The point is it's really very simple," said Bill Murray, a particle physicist at the CERN laboratory in Geneva.

Something, something, crossing the streams.
 
2013-02-03 12:10:04 PM
A = εcl
 
2013-02-03 12:13:30 PM
img.ffffound.com
 
2013-02-03 12:14:22 PM
Hair pi?
 
2013-02-03 12:15:30 PM
List fails without 80085
 
2013-02-03 12:23:40 PM
Einstein himself would have argued the standard model shouldn't be there. Considered it flawed, and was never as happy or content with it as many seem to be today.
 
2013-02-03 12:25:16 PM
twimg0-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-02-03 12:33:15 PM
1 = 0.99999999...  X
Way wrong.
If this is probability, 1 is absolute certainty and anything less than 1 is not.
The sun will rise tomorrow?  Yeah, I'd give that 0.9999999999.... probability given that it is very unlikely the world will end, the earth will stop turning, the sun will burn out, etc. within the next 24 hours.  But it is not absolutely certain.
 
2013-02-03 12:36:13 PM
What, this isn't an article about fractal imagery?  Meh.

Lets start the fractal porn...

images50.fotki.com

images56.fotki.com

images108.fotki.com
 
2013-02-03 12:36:40 PM
newspaper.li

I think this covers both the article and misleading Fark headline.
 
2013-02-03 12:36:50 PM
images49.fotki.com

images12.fotki.com

images46.fotki.com
 
2013-02-03 12:38:27 PM
pictures.mastermarf.com

Oblig
 
2013-02-03 12:38:48 PM
Probably shouldn't have dragged Einstein into this in my previous comment because it's likely to derail things. The problems with the standard model are well known, regardless.
 
2013-02-03 12:38:53 PM

thatguyoverthere70: List fails without 80085


so close but the real number was 5318008

the real fail was that the equations were not included in the article, or at least the version in my crappy browser

no love for navier-stokes?
 
2013-02-03 12:43:12 PM

GoldDude: If this is probability, 1 is absolute certainty and anything less than 1 is not.


Sorry, they said it was MATH. Not probability, which is by definition, not math.
 
2013-02-03 12:43:51 PM
I've completed my very last math class I will ever have to take ever and its time to celebrate.

I, like normal people, will never need to know more than can be accomplished using a calculator on my iphone.

Math sucks.
 
2013-02-03 12:47:28 PM
HΨ = EΨ
 
2013-02-03 12:52:06 PM

J. Frank Parnell: Einstein himself would have argued the standard model shouldn't be there. Considered it flawed, and was never as happy or content with it as many seem to be today.


Oh, harsh criticism from Mr. "Let's just add a cosmological constant, wait, never mind".

Spanky_McFarksalot: Math sucks.


No, the way we teach math (pdf) sucks.
 
2013-02-03 01:05:20 PM
Beauty can often be analyzed as symmetry.

The most basic symmetries of the most commonly used numbers are:

Commutativity: A+B = B+A,  A×B = B×A

Distributivity: A×(B+C) = A×B + A×C

Usually, binary operators don't have these properties, and even if these are universally the product and coproduct within some arbitrary category they don't necessarily have to have them.

The basic numbers we use and their operations are particularly beautiful.
 
2013-02-03 01:08:14 PM
The integral of e to the x is (equals) f to the u n 2 du

Or something like that.

Not a math type guy.
 
2013-02-03 01:16:35 PM
Was this not covered yet, or did I just miss it?
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-03 01:27:06 PM

ds_4815: "The point is it's really very simple," said Bill Murray, a particle physicist at the CERN laboratory in Geneva.

Something, something, crossing the streams.


Gunga lagunga....gunga...gunga galunga...
 
2013-02-03 01:27:22 PM
1 = 0.999999999....

Here we go again.
 
2013-02-03 01:31:29 PM

Ivo Shandor: Was this not covered yet, or did I just miss it?
[i.imgur.com image 100x30]


It was not, though it should have been.
 
2013-02-03 01:43:37 PM

Ivo Shandor: Was this not covered yet, or did I just miss it?
[i.imgur.com image 100x30]


Not covered, which is sad because it is for my money the most surprising and beautiful equation in all of mathematics. Conversely, much of that list isn't equations at all. In fact, you could probably make a better list if you restricted yourself only to equations with Euler's name attached to them.

Still, nice to see Noether getting some love (even if the explanation of her work is completely garbled). She is probably the most important physicist that most people have never heard of. If I ever write a popular book on physics, I'd probably start with her.
 
2013-02-03 01:49:24 PM
Meth thread? Oh, MATH. Carry on.

//they both suck
 
2013-02-03 01:55:59 PM
i1282.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-03 02:09:54 PM
i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-03 02:11:43 PM
i2 = j2 = k2 = -1
 
2013-02-03 02:34:51 PM
Article is incredible misleading. They mention E=mc2, then proceed to say that it was formulated as part of Einstein's theory of General Relativity, which is incorrect. It's part of Special Relativity -- GR came later. To top it off, the article fails to mention that the scientists they interview are discussing Einstein's Field Equations, which is not at all E=mc2.
 
2013-02-03 02:40:32 PM
PV=nRT

/because fark pure math
 
2013-02-03 02:53:17 PM

ds_4815: "The point is it's really very simple," said Bill Murray, a particle physicist at the CERN laboratory in Geneva.


"Back off, man", he continued.  "I'm a scientist".
 
2013-02-03 02:54:21 PM
No love for Dho-Nha geometry curves???
 
2013-02-03 02:54:36 PM

GoldDude: 1 = 0.99999999...  X
Way wrong.
If this is probability, 1 is absolute certainty and anything less than 1 is not.
The sun will rise tomorrow?  Yeah, I'd give that 0.9999999999.... probability given that it is very unlikely the world will end, the earth will stop turning, the sun will burn out, etc. within the next 24 hours.  But it is not absolutely certain.


The probability that you don't understand what 0.99999999... means is 0.99999999...
 
2013-02-03 02:59:28 PM

Kirby Muxloe: No love for Dho-Nha geometry curves???


Once I leveled up far enough I didn't need to cast that spell.
 
2013-02-03 03:02:14 PM

DeltaPunch: Article is incredible misleading. They mention E=mc2, then proceed to say that it was formulated as part of Einstein's theory of General Relativity, which is incorrect. It's part of Special Relativity -- GR came later. To top it off, the article fails to mention that the scientists they interview are discussing Einstein's Field Equations, which is not at all E=mc2.


agreed, and
....it's not even the complete equation, which is E=mc2 + pc
....E=mc^2 doesn't apply to photons. For those, E=hν
 
2013-02-03 03:03:11 PM
Okay, folks it's not that hard.  First, what we mean when we write .9999... is just an infinite decimal with a 9 in every spot (like you could write pi as an infinite decimal 3.1415...)  That's good enough for us now.

As for equality, if .99999... is less than 1 (and it certainly isn't greater than one!), there's a number between them, so call it X.  So .99999...<X<1.  Take the first digit where the decimal representation of X doesn't have a 9.  (If every digit is 9, then X=.99999... and that's not what we chose.)  Then that digit is 0-8, which is less than 9, and so X<.99999..., and that's ridiculous.

Book it, done.

/If you don't like choice, set X to be the average of .9999... and 1.
 
2013-02-03 03:04:16 PM

SevenizGud: PV=nRT

/because fark pure math


"fark pure math" after the ideal gas law?  nice
 
2013-02-03 03:06:36 PM

SevenizGud: PV=nRT

/because fark pure math


Considering the dumbass things I've seen you say in other threads, it seems appropriate that you would say "Fark pure math" and cite an equation that is never accurate.
 
2013-02-03 03:13:27 PM

GoldDude: 1 = 0.99999999...  X
Way wrong.
If this is probability, 1 is absolute certainty and anything less than 1 is not.
The sun will rise tomorrow?  Yeah, I'd give that 0.9999999999.... probability given that it is very unlikely the world will end, the earth will stop turning, the sun will burn out, etc. within the next 24 hours.  But it is not absolutely certain.


So, precisely how much less likely is 0.9999999999.... compared to 1?
 
2013-02-03 03:25:05 PM

LrdPhoenix: GoldDude: 1 = 0.99999999...  X
Way wrong.
If this is probability, 1 is absolute certainty and anything less than 1 is not.
The sun will rise tomorrow?  Yeah, I'd give that 0.9999999999.... probability given that it is very unlikely the world will end, the earth will stop turning, the sun will burn out, etc. within the next 24 hours.  But it is not absolutely certain.

So, precisely how much less likely is 0.9999999999.... compared to 1?


0.01, with an overscore on the second zero.

Duh.
 
2013-02-03 03:35:55 PM

McGrits: no love for navier-stokes?


Came here to ask about Navier-Stokes.  See that I am not needed.

/one should never use "Navier-Stokes" and "beautiful" in the same sentence
 
2013-02-03 03:42:35 PM

GoldDude: 1 = 0.99999999...  X
Way wrong.
If this is probability, 1 is absolute certainty and anything less than 1 is not.


So...much...wrong...

I can accept that there are people who don't understand geometric series and essential certainty. But those people need to learn to shut the fark up about things they don't know.

On the other hand, the world also contains brilliant trolls, and I am frequently awed by their prowess.
 
2013-02-03 03:56:07 PM

sxacho: 1 = 0.999999999....

Here we go again.


But will it take off if Monty Hall opens one of the doors first?
 
2013-02-03 03:58:53 PM

Joelogon: [img.ffffound.com image 425x425]


Dinjiin: [images49.fotki.com image 800x600]

[images12.fotki.com image 800x600]

[images46.fotki.com image 800x600]


I'm with you guys on the fractal porn.  The Fibonacci sequence/golden section/golden ratio is the most fascinating and beautiful thing in math (and the natural world) as far as I'm concerned.
 
2013-02-03 04:01:10 PM
So, if you want to express the quantity one-third, that is exactly one third, but you have to denote it in a decimal form, how do you do that? You write 0.3333... indicating an infinite number of decimal points that are all occupied by 3. What you have expressed in decimal form is exactly equal to the fraction 1/3. It is not almost one-third; it is exactly one-third.

Similarly, if you write 0.9999... indicating an infinite number of decimal places all occupied by 9, the number depicted is exactly 1, not some number just a hair less than one. If it were a finite number of decimal points, it would be some number that was almost 1, but since it is an infinite number of decimal points then the value is indistinguishable from 1.
 
2013-02-03 04:15:43 PM
It would have been a cool story with Mandelbrot.

/coded that thing in HS on a trash-80.  The pixels were enormous and you couldn't see sh*t, but you could tell without a doubt what it was.
 
2013-02-03 04:48:00 PM

SevenizGud: PV=nRT

/because fark pure math


Pretty Virgins = nice Round Tits?
 
2013-02-03 05:17:56 PM

schnee: SevenizGud: PV=nRT

/because fark pure math

Pretty Virgins = nice Round Tits?


The Idealized Woman Law?
 
2013-02-03 05:59:50 PM

alexanderplatz: So, if you want to express the quantity one-third, that is exactly one third, but you have to denote it in a decimal form, how do you do that? You write 0.3333... indicating an infinite number of decimal points that are all occupied by 3. What you have expressed in decimal form is exactly equal to the fraction 1/3. It is not almost one-third; it is exactly one-third.

Similarly, if you write 0.9999... indicating an infinite number of decimal places all occupied by 9, the number depicted is exactly 1, not some number just a hair less than one. If it were a finite number of decimal points, it would be some number that was almost 1, but since it is an infinite number of decimal points then the value is indistinguishable from 1.


And speaking of one-third, divide one by three.

Now divide 0.999999999... by three.

Same result. Proven equal.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report