Is /sci/ smarter then the average Facebook user

Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network issues. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread images: 6

Is /sci/ smarter then the average Facebook user

>>

>>7645531

It can't be simplified any further.

>>

9^(8x^2) bruh

>>

9^(8x)^2

>>

>>7645531

It's 9^(8x^2)

lol at Facebook normies who think that just because the sqrt sign is big enough to cover everything, you can somehow distribute it to every symbol inside it

>>

>>7645531

9^(8x^2)

>>

>>7645531

-1/12

>>

>>7645598

This is a meme, right?

>>

explain pls how you got that answer

whats even being square rooted

>>

>>7645603

this is something you should've learned in middle school, underage please leave

>>

>>7645609

ok well i didnt, so why dont you just explain it instead of being a massive faggot

for fucks sake you took the time to type that out, you might as well just fucking explain it

kill urself

dipshit

>>

>>7645613

>just explain it instead of being a massive faggot

>kill urself

>dipshit

So you don't want the explanation?

>>

>>7645619

if youd rather be a douche than be contributive, yes then kill urself

i even said pls in the beginning

>>

>>7645613

use your brain

9 = 9^1

(9^1)^.5 = 9*.5, not 3^.5

>>

>>7645626

thanks bud

wasnt that hard was it

>>

>>7645623

>calls other people names

>expects help and teaching in return

nig detected

>>

squirt is equal to ^.5, so you multiply the 16 by .5, so 9^(8(x^2))

>>

3 4x

>>

[math]\sqrt{9^{16x^2}} = \left( 9^{16x^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} = 9^{\frac{16x^2}{2}} = 9^{8x^2} [\math]

>>

apparently the average facebook user cannot into exponents!

think of it this way:

sqrt(9) = 3

can be re-written as (9)^1/2

sqrt(9^2) = 9

can be re-written as (9)^2/2

sqrt(9^16x^2) = 9^8x^2

>>

>smarter then

well I'm clearly smarter THAN the average /sci/ poster

>>

3^(16x^2)

>>

>>

>>7645531

(9^(16x^2))^0.5 = (9^(2*8x^2))^0.5 = (9^(8x^2+8x^2))^0.5 = (9^(8x^2) * 9^(8x^2))^0.5 = 9^(8x^2)

>>

The square root simply divides the exponent by two.

>>

>>7645531

>looked at this problem

>realised it's been 15 years since I did this stuff and haven't used it enough to remember it since.

>downloaded all the grad school maths books instantly

Time to start my mathematical education all over again.

>>

>>7648441

>realised it's been 15 years since I did this stuff and haven't used it enough to remember it since

>haven't used it enough to remember it since

>haven't used it enough since to remember it

Fix'd, don't know what happened there, must of touched the screen in the wrong place as I was typing.

>>

>>7645598

excellent meme!

>>

>>7645531

(9^(16*x^2))^0.5=

9^(8x^2)

>>

>>7645613

Lol why are you on /sci/ if you don't even know shit about lol of indices

>>

420

>>

I get the 9^(8) thing but why isn't x^2 covered?

>>

>>7648444

Don't worry about grammar making you look bad

>I couldn't 'remember how to' square root a load of 9s

>>

>>7648465

>I'm so smart but not smart enough to see how people couldn't do the things I can do

And you remember every class you took in high school?

>>

>>7645531

> smarter then the average Facebook user

> then

Smarter than, perhaps, or at least more proficient with the English language.

>>

>>7645531

Then is temporal.

Than is comparative.

Sentences are delimited by punctuation.

>>

>>7645598

>-1/12

that's 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+...

do you know how can I find 1*2*3*4*5*6*7*...?

>>

>>7648462

(1/2)*(16x^2) = (8x^2)

If you're thinking it's supposed to be become x instead of x^2:

x*x != 2x

you're only "halfing" the number of x^2 you have, think of how you have to keep different degrees in a polynomial separate

>>

>>7648562

it's clearly -1/12!

>>

>>7648568

I don't know why mathematicians do this garbage. The sum of all natural numbers, given that there are infinite numbers, would have to be infinity. Now granted it can't be any number. but if you're just trying to find its ultimate summation, there isn't one, it's infinite.

What use lies in this -1/12 bullshit? Where is the utility? What basis are they using to resolve this, and why do they take it seriously?

I want to understand. Because from the outside, it just looks like more of the same stupid hacked together shit I've come to expect from mathematics.

>>

>>7648575

Assuming you really aren't trolling, no mathematician thinks that all numbers sum to -1/12. You're not smarter than all of the world's mathematicians, as much as you may like to think. The problem here is you're trying to judge a field about which you know nothing.

There is a function which behaves like summing all of the natural numbers, and using a complex analysis technique we can extend it "nicely" to take the value -1/12 at a certain point.

>>

>>

>>7645531

3^8x^2

>>

>>7648586

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_%E2%8B%AF

Anon, it should be obvious I don't have the background to so readily interpret any of that, If it isn't the "stupid hacked together shit" I see it as, it should be doable, if not easy, to deliver the necessary means to interpret how and why I might be incorrect. The logical framework is probably not that complex.

>>

>>7646838

You don't even really have to put that much thought into it. If you know that the square root of x^2 is x, you already know that the base won't change under a square root sign. Then it's just a matter of knowing rules about exponents.

>>

>>7648585

>The problem here is you're trying to judge a field about which you know nothing.

That was pretty well implicit in what I said.

Either way, thank you for the legitimate response.

>>

>>7648575

It would take you literally ten seconds to load up a search engine, type in a query, and save yourself the embarrassment here.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ces%C3%A0ro_summation

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanujan_summation

> http://math.arizona.edu/~cais/Papers/Expos/div.pdf

>>

>>7648603

I very rarely feel embarrassment.

My knowledge of mathematics is at roughly a sixth grade level. The equation can be parsed properly, but it's not like I can do anything with it.

"Why is this part in brackets?"

"What does this symbol mean in this context?"

"Does the variable used here have predefined meaning, or is it just there?"

Etc.

You need to realize I'd have to start from near the most base level and slowly build and rebuild a whole framework to be able to actually understand anything in those papers to a point where I could use it myself. Mathematicians are prone to forgetting that absolutely none of it is inherently intuitive.

>>

why isn't the 9 sqrt? Only 16.

>>

>>

3^4x

>>

This says simplify. And you morons are saying its 9^8x^2. No wonder this board is filled with "geniuses". You guys should work at apple.

>>

>>7648624

It's a multiple choice question. You have to pick one of the 4 results presented. Only one of them is actually correct.

>>

>>7648620

muh latex

>>

>>7645531

this is literally addition

8+8=16

math illiteracy is real

>>

[math]\sqrt{9^{16x^2}} = \left( 9^{16x^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} = 9^{\frac{16x^2}{2}} = 9^{8x^2} [/math]

>>

>>7648691

Simplify, anon. You get zero points.

>>

>>7648699

i just copy-pasted some bloke's equation from the thread

>>

>>7648703

>Plagiarism.

Anon, the dean will like to see after class.

>>

>>7645531

Of course. The same way that the average freshman classroom at a mediocre university is smarter than your average night club. People go to one place for image conscious nonsense and debauchery. And people go to the other for nevermind.

>>

>>7648657

Math tags are a 4chan feature, not part of [math]S^{p}_{\forall}\mathbb{N}\partial^{\exists}\chi[/math].

>>

>>7648727

What went on there? It was happy in the preview.

[math] S^{p}_{\forall}\mathbb{N}\partial^{\exists}\chi [/math]

>>

>>7645613

Go back to school kid

>>

>>7645598

>>7648709

>>7648707

>>7648727

>>7648729

>>7648709

>>7648691

>>7648699

>>7648703

>>7648662

>>7648657

>>7648655

>>7648624

>>7648622

>>7648620

>>7648616

>>7646785

>>7645626

>>7644444

>>7646666

>>7648888

>>765555

You guys seem to miss the very point of this thread. It's not about the question as its soluting only requires simple usage of terms. Even a 4 year old could be thaught this.

Instead it's about the high level of irony the facebook users are applying. With "smartness" OP was reffering to the skill to see through simple irony or the knowledge of humans.

You guys seem to lack it all!

>>

>>7648750

Project harder you arrogant little shit.

>>

>>7645531

What were you doing up at 5:45am?

>>

>>7648884

>threatened.jpg

>>

Oh wow you're better than the shits who kept asking "Where will I ever need this" in maths class. Pat yourself on the back, you bunch of super smart people.

>>

>>7648892

Mastubating vigorously while edging for hours on end.

>>

>>7645531

The answer is 0.

>>

>>7648901

Classic

>>

>>7648750

Was the "then" error also a sophisticated ruse?

Thread images: 6

Thread DB ID: 76880

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.

If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at wtabusse@gmail.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.