>got memed into getting a math PhD by /sci/>mfw I am now teaching Calculus I, II, III and remedial Math at a shit college in the middle of nowhereIt gets better right?
>>15177692This.
>>15177449You really took some advice from /sci/ seriously, and followed it without.. well, don't know, maybe thinking for yourself, ask for opinions at other places? You did just what some unknown faggot on /sci/ told you? Nigga is you serious?
>>15177449If you do your own thing with it for sure. Perhaps you can put all of the shit you did for years to use to do the teaching for you.
well, you always can buy land in the middle of forest and build a house without electricity or running water
You should have learned to code along the way. Sorry, bro, better luck next iteration.
Masseteric hypertrophy edition.Previously: >>15122972We discuss research, DO NOT offer advice (just fucking go see your doctor), make fun of premeds and shitpost.Please keep vaccination/clamping/vitamin K/soliciting advice out of this thread and start your own because it takes a lot of space.
>>15176817>dude breaks his femur>apply nail>bone is healed?
>>15176773How's anasthesia handeld in your country? We have no EM-spec, so it's a multispec team but it's primarily handeld by anesthesiologist. Anasthesiology residency here covers being an OR-gasmonkey, intensive care medicine and emergency medicine. If you're not just a gasmonkey it's probably not a bad plan
>>15176817>Patient comes in with heartburn>prescribe him a lethal dose of morphin?
>>15177724Thank you, doc harold. Very cool
>>15158586Assured full tuition at T20 or write a LOI that says I'll throw it away for a T10 spot (good chance at 1/2 tuition scholarship, but not 100%).Cost would be:T20: 80k for COL and misc expenses over 4 yearsT10 (w/o any scholarship): ~ 80k for COL + 120k for tuition over 4 years (they have a max amt you can take in loans per year)Thoughts?
Is this really where it all began?
>>15175762>The proper definition is a positive beliefwrong
>>15177131no, i've seen it
>>15176194>Doesn't time need mass to be able to exist?Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
>>15174811>If spacetime popped into existence at the BBNot the claim of the standard model of cosmology, pseud.
>>15176182>that was his only valid argument and you dodge itIt's not dodging when I don't even know what it said you simpleton child. Your posts are garbage. It's only right to assume your greentext is 10x worse and fully ignore it like it should be. If you actually had an argument (and I'm positive you don't) put it in blacktext. Otherwise, cry and seethe some more. >>>15176194>Therefore, whatever was before the beginning of the universe existed outside of space and timeBegging the question fallacy. Your premise that something existed "before" is assumed in the conclusion that it's possible to exist without time/space. >>15177652>Not the claim of the standard model of cosmology, pseud.LOL. Mince words all you want. The "singularity" is the demarcation of spacetime existing/not existing. You can obfuscate about the BB or great expansion happening "after" that or whatever you want, it changes nothing. >>15177255Atheism is a belief. Go be ignorant somewhere else https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/>>15177134>There is a difference between concluding there is a prime mover and attributing any human characteristics or motives whatsoever to that prime mover.Are you actually making this strawman or are you just saying random things? At any rate, you are confused and have things exactly backwards. God cannot have human characteristics, humans can have "God-like" characteristics to an infinitely smaller degree I guess. >There is absolutely no reason the initial causer would have to be a being in any sense of the word.You must be an ESL because it verbatim matches the first definition of the word. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being
Who are the best science youtubers?pic related
>>15175605We will be watching your career with great interdest
>>15171152Wildberger gets a lot of praise around here, but I've never seen any of his videos. Someone post one of his best ones
>>15176247I don't even know who he is, but I watched this video after itthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REeaT2mWj6YLooks like another pedantic 1.999... != 2 argumentBecause the ... is the hangup.
>>15176270That's an extremely based video. Very good breakdown of the argument.
>>15168600This is good actually. If you invert the scale, it's a really good way of seeing who to watch
Why does AI always turn out to be based and redpilled?
the existence of the vacuum i.e. a space devoid of matter, has not been proven.
>>15177188>How do we know they are real then?we don't
>>15176876They weren't taking about an artificial vacuum though, they said vacuum, which is>a space devoid of matter
>>15176839Does that mean 0 is in fact the inverse or dark of 2?
>>15176848indirect detection. fire an electron at a proton very fast, and the electron seems to be penetrating deeply into the proton's core, and then scattering elastically off of something. it's indirect evidence of a substructure of protons. these come from bjorken scaling + callan-gross relation
>>15176839Wouln't you just need to find a space with very little matter and arbitrarily mark out a space that is between the particles present? You can address my nobel prize to "bridge crackhead"
>>15169464
>>15176804>4 boxes
>>15169464>>15176804>>15176981
>>1517782120>8.0?
A good friend is a PhD and researches "multiple spin-2 fields".Does anyone have a clue of how... difficult it is to understand what it's even about? The more he explains it, the more I realize how much I need to know to have an inkling of what it's about.>pic related: me when hearing about spinors, degrees of freedom, multimetric theory, quantum fields, and ghosts in different formulations
>>15176609That's by design. It's harder to tell if someone is making up their results if the jargon is so dense and theoretical that it's impossible for outsiders to enter the field and critique it.
>>15176609Your friend is a pseud. He should know how to explain it without the jargon, but he can't. Though in my experience, explaining research without the jargon still leaves brainlets like you lost. For the record it's not my explanations that fail either. I've had literal drunk people at bars (while I had only half a drink) start reinventing the very natural jargon of my field after explaining my research to them. Meanwhile I've had completely sober idiots like you who just internally sob
>>15176609I know about degrees of freedom, we studied that in school, in chemical bonding.
>>15176609It would be the same in any field. You could be talking to a farmer and he would tell you about plant anatomy and agricultural chemicals by their brand name, and you could not follow along
>>15176609Its about gravitons
What the fuck did we get ourselves into edition.Old Thread>>15121820This thread exists to ask questions regarding careers associated to STEM.> Discussion on academia based career progression> Discussion on penetrating industry from academia> Or anything in relation to STEM employment or development within STEM academia!Resources for protecting yourself from academic marxists:>https://www.thefire.org/ (US)>https://www.jccf.ca/ (Canada)Information resource:>https://sciencecareergeneral.neocities.org/>*The Chad author is seeking additional input to diversify the content into containing all STEM fields. Said author regularly views these /scg/ threads.No anons have answered your question? Perhaps try posting it here: >https://academia.stackexchange.com/Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>15177569>>15177593thanks powersister. I'm just gonna shotgun apply to some utilities :^)
>>15177540My brother in christ, get your PE if you want to design. IDK how much you're making right now but if you got 11 years controls experience and your LOICENSE i know at least 3-4 separate design firms that would pay you $150k+, fully remote, to do I&C design.
>>15177094As another alternative, I am in Grid Operation Planning. It's essentially about running studies to determine when it's most suitable to enact different transmission projects that reconfigure the nature of the electric grid, identifying all the different system constrains and such. It's pretty interesting, although nothing I do materializes short term, it's thoughtful yet relaxed.
>>15177094Utilities in general is pic related
>>15177785I have a few friends that work in a similar field. They do interconnect planning. In a few years I might jump ship to work with them.
I cant understand it. It was over for me before it even began.
>>15177676Well, I'm watching precalculus and I'm pretty sure about the material so far, it's mostly stuff I know but need to refresh after 2 years of neeting.Going back to even more basic stuff would be pointless. I just think if OP has trouble with precalculus Leonard's precalculus vids should clear any of his doubts.
>>15177685Right, but without a strong grounding in algebra - which most precalculus books on the preface emphasise - he's going to struggle. If he wants a quick rundown then Precalc in a nutshell by Simmons would be fine. Also, MIT has videos related to his calc book. But if he went to Khan Academy, and did the pre-calc test, he would see his weak points.
>>15177702I guess I'm underestimating how much OP doesn't know then
>>15177645>wtf is muh precalculusanother word for algebra + trigonometry and this and that. No other country actually uses a course for that, though, in Germany we've got the "Vorkurs" which is about refreshing mathematics taught in school starting from the basics of arithmetics up to calc 1. It lasts 6-8 weeks and is optional though. You start right off with calculus, linear algebra, numerics.. Without precalculus shit
Many people have an issue with infinitesimals. How can those be understood? Half a millennium ago, Jesuits had the notion of infinitesimals excommunicated. As they did not believe to corresponded to reality. These days, no one is sure if they correspond that way. But some suspect that they might. David Tong: “reality is non-discretizable”.
Whats 1 ± 1 = ?
>>151776772;0
>>15177677it means you have a 95% probability of finding your measurement between 0 and 2
>>15177677+ - are inverses so there's no displacement. 1
[math]1\pm1=\begin{cases}2\quad\text{if}~+\\0\quad\text{if}~-\end{cases}[/math]
fags, i dont want to die. there is so much to see so much to do. can we cheat death? can we stop aging? i know that there is something in genes that forces us to stop producing new cells but what can be done about this ? is there any way we can stop this disease of death ? why must we die and not continue with our species >inb4 population control
>>15176348Your blog posting and smugness suggest yes. If you stopped replying I might believe you didn't crave attention.
>>15176353
>>15176334There are too many ex-atheists to remain an atheist. The first step is really looking into if paranormal things are true or not.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UYrFzf0B1I
>>15176392>The first step is really looking into if paranormal things are true or not.Lmao even harderAlso you seem to be under the impression that I'm an atheist, why is that? Because I poked fun at the Abrahamic religions? Here's my advice: drop them, they are trash.
>>15175904Most atheists aren't even interested in immortality. For instance, only about 4000 people in the world are signed up for cryonics despite there being millions of atheists.
>The past by definition doesn't exist anymore. The future by definition doesn't exist yet. Therefore only the present moment exists, always.Discuss.
>>15177547Retard, object permanence is purely within the perception. Can you prove the universe existed before yesterday?
many such posts in this thread were made in the past.
>>15176352Special relativity implies eternalism.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD2jKSW7yss
>>15176352You are going to have to define the present moment, in terms of more than just what it is not.
>>15176352Past, present, and future are fractal. Therefore, all three exist for one another. More precisely, all three exist at the same time, all at once.
serious question I'm not fucking around I think I got something with fentanyl in it and took too muchmy breathing is very shallow but my heart rate is highwill I die if I go to sleep? I don't feel the need to inhale at the valley of an exhale. it's this weird sense that I can choose to die at any time right now by just not drawing another breath, because yeah, the reflex is gone.I have a little bag of crystal meth. when should I start panicking and take some to reverse the respiratory depression? or is it all in my head? no it can't be, and no I'm not going to the hospital again I just got back from the fucking hospitalI also have olanzapine which is an antispychotic and feels like a benzo but I don’t know what’s real or not
>>15177483I need to talk to someone with personal experience
>>15177446The "something" that's laced with fent has a lot to do with your initial reaction. Depending on the initial drug you bought, it could compound the effects of the fentanyl, etc etc. TLDR go to a pharmacy and ask for Narcan
>>15177446Keep us updated.
I took some of the meth.my plan is to wait 6 hours then take 40mg olanzapine.if things still feel very wrong I'll go to my dad's place, not my mom's. and also not the hospital.>>15177528i feel very wrong about the idea of going outside.anyway yeah, """research chemicals""" are a trap for socially isolated 4chan/reddit kids.i fell for it.
well? isnt anyone gonna bother telling me what a horrible suicidal idea that is????fuck this websitei have spent every day here since i was 14
Georg Landsberg editionDiscuss mathematics herePreviously>>15159206Gotta question for you guys. What, in your opinion, is the advantage of discussing math here instead of on some other website? Is it just that /sci/ is the least retarded place you know of?
>>15177344>>15177352>>15177427Am I correct in thinking that you are asking about the following sequence:[math]\forall \{x;y;a\} \in \mathbb{R}_{+}[/math][math]x^a=y[/math].[math]\forall \{x_{1}, x_{2}; y_{1}, y_{2}; a_{1}, a_{2} \} \in \mathbb{R}_{+} [/math][math] {\begin{bmatrix} x_{1} & x_{1} \end{bmatrix}} ^{{\begin{bmatrix} a_{1} & a_{1} \end{bmatrix}}} + {\begin{bmatrix} x_{2} & x_{2} \end{bmatrix}} ^{{\begin{bmatrix} a_{1} & a_{1} \end{bmatrix}}} = {\begin{bmatrix} y_{1} & y_{1} \end{bmatrix}} [/math][math] {\begin{bmatrix} x_{1} & x_{1} \end{bmatrix}} ^{{\begin{bmatrix} a_{2} & a_{2} \end{bmatrix}}} + {\begin{bmatrix} x_{2} & x_{2} \end{bmatrix}} ^{{\begin{bmatrix} a_{2} & a_{2} \end{bmatrix}}} = {\begin{bmatrix} y_{2} & y_{2} \end{bmatrix}} [/math].[math] \forall \{x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}; y_{1}, y_{2}, y_{3}; a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3} \} \in \mathbb{R}_{+} [/math]etc?If so there is no general solution, per Galois groups.
enjoying my life on the complex unit disk
>>15177559>If so there is no general solution, per Galois groups.No solution by radicals, you mean.
>>15177485Uhm, please share if you rember! n < 6 helps in my context>>15177489I tried asking on a math Discord and they said this problem is "cursed". Pic is the simple case [math]n=2[/math]. I assume solutions in higher dimensions are the surface intersection of lp hyperspheres. >can't this fail for large exponentsThis is an interesting point. It makes sense, large exponents are problematic as surfaces become cube-like when [math]a_i \to \infty[/math].>>15177559>>15177568This is very interesting, thank you. I will have to learn more about Galois groups and radicals to make sense of the answers.
>>15177382>but I think you can actuallyWell you are wrong.>>15177424You are being misinformed by the ignorant anon, don't listen to him. You simply cannot prove that {(z,f(z)) | z in x} is a set. There are no axioms that let you prove this. You cannot apply replacement, because the axiom of replacement is stated without the symbol f. You don't have the axiom of replacement with f in it.
