Anyone else a complete retard when learning new things, even trivial things, for the first time? Once I have actually learned it and understood it, I can apply it to new problems easily. I also improve very quickly.
I can recall being stumped for 20 whole minutes by algebraic manipulation of number sequences when I was first learning it.
Am I retarded?
Are you sure you're learning correctly? If you have difficulty with that shit, get a more explanatory textbook. Some textbooks expect you to understand straight away, but some go into more detail about exactly how, and why to do it.
Though, to be honest, with math some things just aren't understood straight away until you apply them again and again.
I can relate. First-time comprehension is absolute garbage. I can't follow a lecture.
But once I get home and do some experimenting and further reading I master it and never forget.
Do you happen to be clumsy, bad at competitive videogames and generally sub-par at tasks which require you to think "In the moment"?
why don't chimps just get a hold of knives?
Moonwatcher did. His competition did not.
We are the children of Moonwatcher. And your picture shows the children of his ancient competition.
(IB4 someone demonstrates tool-usage by chimps)
I know they're big fans of sticks, but I don't mean this to be silly as it sounds. I saw a documentary on chimps tribal warfare and the fuckers used flanking and ambush tactics. It surprises me they aren't at least bashing each other with big sticks or rocks.
>tfw two inventions under my belt
Get on my level nigs.
Hey /sci/ I need some help
I haven't really studied math for around 9 years and I'm a littly rusty
I need to learn math from scratch until basic calculus in around 10 months
Can it be done?
I can invest around 5-6 hours a day
if there were parallel universes, how come our universe is so normal?
surely most universes have some weird things happening in them that even their inhabitants can figure it's weird
On another board I was discussing the possibility of Original Sin with a Catholic tripfag. I promise this is /sci/-related so hear me out.
For some context, the RCC affirms that Original Sin entered the world through a transgression made by two humans at some point in early history (Adam and Eve), which was then passed on to their descendants to cover the whole of humanity. It is helpful to think of original sin as a super dominant but invisible 'gene' present in anyone who can trace their lineage back to Adam or Eve.
Now the traditional interpretation...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
My biggest objection is related to the emergence of the 'rational soul'. I cannot find any reason why only two humans out of a pool of thousands of anatomically identical contemporaries would somehow qualify for this. Furthermore, behaviours associated with rational thought and a 'soul', e.g. art and religious practices, developed 500,000 years ago and were even commonplace amongst neanderthals, which implies that Adam/Eve may not have been human.
ITT: we post Questions That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread
How do you tell the difference between dense regular connective tissue and elastic CT? It's easy when the stain makes the elastic fibers pop, but some slides are giving me conniptions.
On a side note: why the fuck is the OP so much bigger than the other posts?
If Earth is still the same planet of the dinosaurs, then if we fastforward time, dinosaurs will be back?
Dinosaurs still rule the Earth, though.
Do you think the reason we prefer female companionship over male companionship is that females offer a unique perspective on things most of the time and don't just say what we're probably already thinking?
Is Westermarck effect a meme, /sci/? Is there some genuine reason for me not to be attracted to my sister, or is it all cultural brainwashing?
Social interaction is a product of highly developed brain functionality, both of which are poorly understood. So your question should be instead directed to psychology and social science majors and not actual science
So what you do, is assuming this converges.
Like so: x = 1-1+1-1...
1 - x = x
x = 1/2.
This works in a similar way to how imaginary numbers allow us to find true answers.
so whats the problem?
What's the nail in the coffin of the flat earth model?
so who's The Thief?
Well Carly is admitting her guilt and there is supportive evidence from Dave that Carly is guilty. So that's two corroborative reports of guilt for Carly, more than any of the other suspects.
Also, more information needed
Is it impossible to make a general theory of nonlinear partial differential equations? Isee them everywhere, from plasma confinement tonjosephson junctions, and im curious if you can derive those named equations from a Universal theory. I see most of the millenium prize probelems dealing with them too, so im curious if there is a profound nature behind understanding what a solution is in a general way.
Not many differential equations are explicitly solvable, OP. Often times you have to settle for a description of qualitative behavior as opposed to an explicit solution. Any "general theory of nonlinear partial differential equations" would have to be so general that it is in practice virtually unusable.
>he thinks number theory is very interesting and wants to dedicate his life to it