I took Calc 1 and 2 years ago. I barely survived Calc 2. I’ve heard Calc 3 is easier, is that true?

Here's a syllabus I found online:https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcIII/CalcIII.aspx >>14884921What? No. Calc 3 is multivariate. Your uni is weird.>>14885408lol you're either retarded or trying to scare op for no reason. Stfu.

>>14880512calc 2 was ruined by all the fucking gay faggot series shitcalc 3 will be amazing and fun for you if you're a chad with 3d visualization capabilities. otherwise it'll be a slog.

>>14880803You got several answers already but the answer is what you think. You do an integral and you do it again. There's a but more complexity to it when you consider other theorems and substitutions introduced but at its most bare level, you just integrate multiple times, usually with respect to different variables

>>14880512>you're fuckedcalc 3 is easily the hardest of the 3

i dont know what shitty education you got but here multi calculus was way harder that single. limits of multivariable functions has multiple directions to approach, you have 1 2 and infinity norms, extrema of these functions are harder, implicit and inverse functions theorems proof are crazy and finally you have non 1 dimensional domains to deal before apply calc 1 integration techniques, I knows average us higher education was shit but wtf

>overkill proofs in order to impress prof>C's on all assignments for "abuse of notation"why are professors so pedantic ?

>>14885797that's one ugly \phi

brevity is the soul of wit

>>14885797When I took the intro to proof writing class there was one autistic kid who insisted on doing all of his proofs entirely in symbols. Even shit like induction. Not a single word. Professor ending up give a 10 minute explanation to the class that the symbols are just shorthand and everything you write down is a sentence and once you know your proof is write, you need to focus on readability, because it does no one any good if you can't communicate it.You probably are autistic. I'm sorry

>>14885797>Op describes himself doing something pedantic>Accuses his prof of being pedantic

>>14886271>When I took the intro to proof writing classWhy so these exist? Proofs vary a lot from subject matter to subject matter. Today's "intro to proof writing" classes are literally just dumbed down combinatorics classes, but that's not going to teach you how to do proofs in other subdisciplines in math. The way you learn to write proofs is you just take math classes and you wrestle with the material until you understand why the professor's or text's arguments actually prove something vs whatever you would have come up with if you didn't have their examples to mimic.

What is the space-time fabric made of? If space-time is emptiness, how do masses bend space-time? Or is the fabric of space-time itself a kind of medium?By the way, I am aware that the fabric mentioned is an analogy.

spacetime arises from entanglement of degrees of freedom. Keep in mind that this is an analogy, not actually an explanation:Imagine a simulation where the specific locations of every particle were not stored, but the relative distances of each particle to each other particle. From those distances, you could re-construct many different variations of a layout in 3D space that satisfy all those different stored distances.The result is a solution that "creates space" from the perspective of a pattern of particles living within this entangled space.

>>14877745Read this bookhttps://www.amazon.com/Space-Time-Matter-HERMANN-WEYL/dp/0486602672likely too big brain for /sci/ tho

>>14885659>i am the only one on /sci/ gullible and low iq enough to fall for this popsoi trash

>>14877745>how do masses bend space-timeThe same way I bend your mom's ass in no timeThe is interaction thus properties are sharedI hope this helps

>>14877745fold waveshail to macross fans

Nepal has on average an IQ of 45. This classifies as almost on the borderline of "severe mental retardation"...yet somehow they still act in ways that suggests more intelligence than a gorilla. Koko the gorilla received IQ scores between 70-90. Despite that fact, they still pale in comparison to what a human can do. So this brings up the question...is there something more to intelligence than just I.Q? And if so, what is that something?This also got me thinking that I.Q can indeed, be increased by a good educational foundation, significantly. Give those Nepal people internet, decent education and some kind of reward system for exercising rational thought, and I'm sure they would get an extra 50 points or more. What are your thoughts on this?

>>14880072Nepal is the home of the Buddha. He was pretty wise at least.They're just poor and overworked. You can barely even get around from city to city apparently, without it being an ordeal.

The whole fucking point of IQ is literally murdering>muh retard negroe muttsby making them take a test and then saying>we're going to kill you if you score lowit really is that sick and twistedit really is that genocidalthat is the historical record

>>14883714No, actually, the whole point is psychiatric testing for conditions, brain traumas, and a laundry list of hundreds of other things. You're equally as stupid as the racists thinking it validates racism.

>>14880278Please go back to /vp/, no one thinks you're cool because you play Pokemon.

Semi related: why are there so many of these fuckers at my university?

any german law students here who can help me with an Hausarbeiti gibs you money or we could be frens

Hausarbeit macht frei

>>14885725Wie verzweifelt bist du, dass du auf /sci/ nach Jura-Hilfe suchst?

>>14885725>law>science&math

>>14885776nicht verzweifelt, nur keine Lust und ein Kleinanzeigen-Ghostwriter könnte mich erpressen wenn ich dann Verfassungrichter bin

>>14885870>keine Lust und ein Kleinanzeigen-Ghostwriter könnte mich erpressen wenn ich dann Verfassungrichter binNicht mal in der Lage anonym zu arbeiten aber Karriere machen wollen. "Er war Jurist und auch sonst bei mäßigem Verstand"

Science is so freaking cool.

>>14884207another 12000 rpm schizo

>>14885430>Well I don’t accept that something so simple can just be neglected.And I understand that, I wish you the best of luck, but to remember they do not care about the truth or playing fair.My work is the outer edge of theoretical physics with zero applied experiements...so all I have are my equations.You at least have something to show the commoners. All I have is an alien language.

>>14885446No. I am John Mandlbaur and I am the only reasonable person on the planet who can accept that the existing physics prediction of 12000 rpm is wrong. You are the evasive faggot who is shit scared to face simple facts.

>>14885450Well thank you. Good luck to you too. Hopefully when the angular momentum house of cards collapses, your work will be seen.

>>14884195how did you acquire that knowledge?

the invention that saved europe

>>14886100but the russians are the problem

>>14886094Im not askin' if I fite.I fite.

>>14886134True, but the obviously solution is to nuke Ukraine so Russia inherits an irradiated shithole

>>14886175Z predicted this.>Where We Nyet We Go oдин

>>14886175ukraine is not a shithole though, with it's fertile lands and newfound oil/gas reservessee how it's tempting to invade ukraine?

What's the deal with hydroelectricity generators, specifically from "Wave/Tidal" type of power. I'm quite baffled at how there haven't already been all sorts of "Free, Clean, Infinite Energy" devices set up, instead of trying to jump through Nuclear Hoops. But in the article here:>https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/nanogenerators-could-produce-electricity-from-sea-wavesit looks like it works by "floating up and down"? Surely there would be better ways to draw energy from the wave than that, right?Picrel is one example I believe.

>>14881936>Look, basically, I just don't trust a lot of the """experts""" regarding what is/isn't possible to make; especially if they have extreme financial incentives to make sure the answer always says "Impossible"....Define "energy". Define "electrification". >I mean, if you want to keep giving $Trillions to the Green-Party and Big-Oil;I want .50 cent/gal gasoline again, thanks.

So I'll probably have to make a new thread pretty soon before we hit the bump limit after I ask this question:>>>Is coffee good for you?

>Are you just going to scroll past without a frenly Bump?

I know no one actually cares, but I'm going to bump anyway...

are hurricanes caused by excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

I thought hurricanes were caused by sharpie markers

>>14884171No they're caused by pressure differentials in the atmosphere, which can be driven by many factors.

>>14884171It's impossible to attribute individual disasters or weather events to climate change. Deniers know this and try to use individual events as Gotchas anyway, like saying you can't prove individual smokers were killed by the tobacco industry.But yes, the frequency and intensity of hurricanes is increased by warmer seawater that gives them more energy

>>14884171>excess CO2 in the atmosphereMaybe a fraud, now people that measure it (smoke detector company) and they can't confirm.

formerly >>14866559Which trigonometric function is the most fundamental? - editionTalk math.

>>14880885[eqn](2x/l)^n+(2y/w)^n+(2z/h)^n=1[/eqn]what are LWH and n? xyz=lwh? basis vectors? each of the areas of the plane would be like (xy+ xz + yz) * 2would give 6 faces but why dividing?

a singularity's location necessarily changes over time so it contains a vector as well

>>14885984should maybe also ask here what the function defining a square is? can i use law of cosines and define angles? is it a projection of the 3d vectors onto their component planes? is it one of the partial derivative of a sphere?

>>>Brits on the internet are convinced that Americans don't cover proofs of delta-epsilon, Rolle's theorem/Intermediate Value Theorem/Extreme Value Theorem, etc. during first year math coursesWhy are they so egotistical? Do they really think that Americans are graduating with a bachelors in mathematics that isn't equivalent to theirs? They always present oxford/cambridge/warwick as examples of what their curriculum is, but get upset when you compare it to MIT, Princeton, Harvard.

>>14885262>My faggot dad wants me to do it as well, but I have no interest in business faggotry.Respect your father. Now.>>14885283It's mostly useful and was originally intended for generating interest and giving students encouragement through accomplishment (which you don't get in math otherwise until you're well into your career). As for learning math top-to-bottom, it's possible if you have the talent but most people are better served going the standard way imo.

https://www.mensa.org/public/mensa-iq-challengeLet's see /sci/ IQ. I will regularly average out the IQ being posted in this thread to show that /sci/ is the smartest board on 4chan.Rules:1. Don't cheat.2. You can only take the test once.3. Be real.4. Don't get fake.Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.Pic related: my test.

>>14881889Do you really think this accurate? Average shitposting would bring down every boards actual IQ. The top boards that have the high in posts are lit, sci, pol, k, fit, biz, and g with x, tv, v, ck and out having decent posts here and there. Not everyone contributes or lurks every one of these boards but anyone who makes the rounds on an occasional basis knows these boards are the core of 4chinz

>>14886164I forgot his and int are pretty good too but the breadth of info is to broad and ends up being a clusterfuck

>>1487863492, got bored at question 13

guessed on the last couple. couldn't really figure those out

so what does mensa actually do other than sniff each others' farts?

If it’s impossible to know everything, then, technically, it’s impossible to know anything. Therefore, you should just stop learning. Go back to knowing nothing. Return to babby.

>>14885896>>14885912Moreover, my claim is a claim to end all claims. For it is a rejection of claims themselves. A plea to experience life only through the senses and no longer through analysis.

>>14885925You need both analysis and your senses, and then when you use the 2 in tandem, in the appropriate proportions conducive to relativity, a 3rd unknown appears, "spirit".Discarding analysis/language leads to absolutism, direct experience and solipsism, which is a death state.>>14885905A saving faith in the gospel is all you need. Intellectually acknowledgement of something is not the same as saving faith though

>>14885955Hmm, no

>>14885977>Hmm, noHmmm, YESWhen you say a curse word in one culture, it can be extremely offensive. Then when you say it in another culture, for them it could be a greeting. Now, what determines whether this word is offensive, or inoffensive? The answer is, the "spirit" of its delivery, which is heavily determined by relativity.A kiss could mean a positive thing in one place at one time under certain circumstances, and be completely inappropriate in another circumstance. What makes "urinating on a grave" so bad? That's right, now you're beginning to see the spirit behind actions and words.That spirit? The good book says that that's the true reality.

>>14885859That's why I said tentatively.By analogy, if you're in unknown terrain, it'd make sense to take slow and careful steps and to be on guard so you don't get bit by a venomous snake or shot by an angry local or infected with lyme disease or whatever.You can be careful, slow, and methodical with learning too. That's basically just a description of the scientific method.

Sirs i have a finding for human kind to make unlimited free hydrogen energy from most natural biological process that I wish to share with the world. PLEASE WATCH VIDEO ENTIRELY, I give sureness that all of your questions.will be satisfy.https://files.catbox.moe/fl55re.mp4

>>14882637Looks like a bag of shit.

>>14882637You painted your foot you fucking schizo. Meds immediately.

>>14882637OP is making jenkem.

>>14882637>and then I ate the poopo to stop aerobic conditionPoor guy

Randomized controlled trial are designed to account for confounding variables. RCTs can be limited by non-significant outcome differences due to measurement error, small sample size, and blinding issues.Assuming an RCT produced significant outcome differences, what are some other reasons that could still make the results meaningless?Lets say you randomly give 50 people supplement A, 50 people supplement B, and 50 people a placebo. They can't taste or notice any difference, and after some time you measure something about them that is significantly different between them. What are some reasons that the differences maybe aren't meaningful?

Anyone?

bump

>>14882835Undocumented lifestyle changesUnderlying biological / genetic condition

>>14884401yeah, but wouldn't a sufficiently large sample size account for that? and how would you go about determining what would constitute "sufficiently large"? because I assume that merely looking at whether the outcome differences were significant or not isn't enough.

How do I calculate the probability that within some defined space two shapes will overlap? I mean shapes, not simple objects. For instance, if you took paper cutout circles and skinny swastikas of equal area they would not intersect at the same frequency. I would want to do it by defining each object as a polygon, counting the sparseness/coverage, ie the degree of non-overlap, by taking each point in its outline and drawing a line between it and every other point in the polygon, then adding those distances. And then this quantity would be multiplied by some constant and the cross sectional area of the polygon to find the probability of overlap. Does something like this approach make sense? Also, what if there are two kinds of polygon (shapes) you’re dealing with?Here is a problem which illustrates what I’m trying to solve for a particular dataset: there is a Xerox machine, a box of thin swastika paper cutouts, and a box of heart cutouts. Dump the boxes onto the machine. What is the probability that a given heart will land on a swastika? Forgive me for the redundancy, unclarity and mathematical illiteracy. I have only used math to calculate tips since high school.

> some weak formulation of a mathematical problem> lack of mathematical rigour, no knowledge beyond high school> swastika paper cutoutsback to the containment board, ye