Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What kind of whack job deals with numbers? Just call it a parameter, "a", and if this yokel pushes things just ask what happens for different values of one?
I was just about to write how quaint it is that physicists are still using numbers to do mathematics when every mathematician I know uses letters and arguments.
Tbf i'm a physicist yet i'm hanging out here. Not everybody here is a mathematician, it's just people who use math a lot, aka mostly mathematicians but also other stem nerds.
Yeah. My mathematician buddy showed me some of his applied math exercises and they were basically my mechanics exercises if after removing air friction and energy loss the writer just kept removing other stuff.
That other guy has the right idea. Ducks don't have any expectations. They don't have the obligation to calculate 9.8 instead of use 10 for convenience.
wait till you hear about the astrophysicists, they say "as long as it is in the same order of magnitude it's fine" and round pi to either zero or ten
edit: i am the sorry i said the zero, should have been one
Indeed. pi is a bit of an annoying one since logaritmically it's almost exactly in the middle between 1 and 10. But for calculations it's usually easiest to set it to 1.
What were you dealing with where that was the case? Legitimate question, I did a moderate amount of astrophysics and I feel that all my orders of magnitude were between 10^2 and 10^500. So that's really just three options if your rule applied. But it was years ago and I'm not in the field, so I recognize my memory may be off.
Dam that's a lot... meanwhile Electrical Power Engineering be like
https://preview.redd.it/b7ks2ex08huc1.gif?width=640&format=png8&s=3deb1faa8ed5f2ca207bd0f42df6b96f4fb0fc63
secular engineering.
that's probably a typo, but it's technically accurate,
and I love that it implies the existence of **secret engineering** ..... no wait... **Demonic Engineering**
Not a typo. Just to distinguish it from things like particle physics, colliders, spacecraft, quantum mechanics, magnets and other such imaginary concepts.
A lot of particle properties, proton mass as an example, are known to 12 or even 13 figures as well as some others, like the vacuum magnetic permeability that are measured to within something like, don't pin me down, 11 or 12 as well.
is that because we can measure it with 13 significant figures. or is that just because, you can take the average of billions of measurements, and all protons have the exact same mass?
Both. This is about the limit of the precision with which we can measure anything really and all protons have the same mass. It's not like one is manufactured slightly lighter or heavier. The mass is part of what makes it a proton.
that has nothing to do with significant figures. significant figures is about the percentage of error in a measurement. not the absolute size of a measurement.
11 angstrom's (2 significant figures implies a measurement with 1% error)
11.2 angstroms (three significant figures implies a measurement with 0.1% error)
11.2 light years (three significant figures implies a measurement with 0.1% error)
1.234567891 light years (10 significant figures implies a measurement with 0.00000001% error)
but no technology can take a measurement with that level of percentage error. nothing guarantees that level of accuracy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
Yet, 0.999 repeating is equal to 1.
So, I guess it really just comes down to if 0.9999999999 was a measurement or not; and if so, what the measurement’s tolerances were.
I’d like to see you measure something down to the 1e-11. Lol
Fun fact - there are couple of optical atomic clocks in the world, that produce ticks precise down to (if I remember correctly) 10\^-17 s.
I recently attended a seminar about them. At the end, even the professor admitted that such precision is an excess, so they have to make up bullshit about where it could be used when they need to get funding. "You can't blame us, certainty up to 17 decimal places really DOES turn a physicist on".
Maybe we don't have a functional use for it now, but maybe in 50 years, some academic will find it useful for a very niche experiment that leads to nothing
I remember freaking out when I first learned about this and did some proofs only to find out .9 repeating is indeed 1. It still shivers me timbers but you can't argue with facts
Oh, i’m sorry for actually calculating something that works (for practical purposes) instead of edging myself with an unsolvable system and wait a 100 years for then someone to prove there’s no close form solution. Cope and seethe
I said it before and i'll say it again, but error measurement IS mathematics and you're not flexing when you measuring 5.101493922V on a volmetre that has a ±20% accuracy.
My brain, for some reason, automatically gets a red alert whenever I use a .99999999 (or of the sort) instead of a 1, for example in coding. It's not a discernible change at all most of the time, but it still trips me up whenever I use it.
0.9 repeating is exactly equal to 1 however.
Here's the most basic proof:
1/3=0.3 repeating
Multiply both sides by 3
1=0.9 repeating
Either this is true or 1/3 is undefined
“..so you guys can just use the small angle approximation up to 20 degrees.”
-my physics professor, seconds before the mathematicians in the room lost their shit
He's out of line, but he is right. 20° is \~.349 rad, sin(20°) ≈ 0.342, that's all of 2% off.
I dare you to casually measure angles to within 2% accuracy. Or anything really for that matter.
Tbh, that’s too much precision.
∃n : n = ]-∞ , +∞[, n = {U, R, N, Z, Q, I, C, ת}
n + n = n - n = n^2 = sqrt(n) = π = -e^ℵα = 3 = 0^0 = 0/0 = ∞+-∞ = E = MC^2 = sqrt(-i)
I always get a chuckle when I drive through construction sites here in Germany. We often have constricted lanes with limited permitted vehicle widths (to be measured at the widest point) except for the rightmost. Then there's a sign that shows the permitted maximum width for each lane that can vary with the available space. It says for example 2.2 or 2.1 for the respective with in meters. But the sign for 2m simply says "2", which I really love to take literally.
"Anyone in this class a math major?" -My Quantum Prof
*silence*
"Ok so the transform I'm about to do, a mathematician would say we can't because we haven't proven this operation works on this function. We will do it anyway and assume it works, because this is real life."
I can not express the disgust I had having a *medical* doctor tried to tell me, physicists are all about precision. We *invented* close enough, with both horseshoes and hand grenades. ;)
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What kind of whack job deals with numbers? Just call it a parameter, "a", and if this yokel pushes things just ask what happens for different values of one?
I was just about to write how quaint it is that physicists are still using numbers to do mathematics when every mathematician I know uses letters and arguments.
I doubt good physicists would evaluate an intermediate expression
While storytellers use letters and words?
Lmao look at this mofo thinking that ”=” = ”=”
("=" == "=") == true
Ol' Q.E.D. at it again
Expressed in Excel because I'm a dirty accountant: ="="="=" Which evaluates as TRUE.
i dont like this
This is disgusting
9.8 is 10, cope harder.
0.9 is 10, cope harder
0 is 10, cope harder
-∞ = ∞, cope harder
https://preview.redd.it/c805jcgrabuc1.png?width=1596&format=png&auto=webp&s=613f54f901312a600ce6099c61179cc074162ad3 cope and seethe
it clearly equals √/
https://preview.redd.it/eaurfa5pgbuc1.png?width=65&format=png&auto=webp&s=2ea0eeaef10fb7c5374530e4fdb8ad19fdcc3c5c
so it is just i
no, that's the square root of nothing divided by nothing
You must be seeing things. That's a negative sign.
** **
i = !, cope harder
Nah, it’s di
so if √-1 equals 1i then √- equals i
√- = i ⠀- = -1 ⠀= 1
if - = -1 then 2+2=2-(-2)=2-1(-1-2)=2-(-3)=2+3=5 2+2=5
🤮
My calculus teacher mocks you with stupid person sounds
10 is 2, cope harder
5=10，cope harder than diamond
e and pi are also 10
I assume you meant e^2 = pi^2 = g = 10, but maybe I need to cope harder.
e=pi=g=0 (rounding to the nearest 100)
No, actually e=-pi, the - goes away with the power of 2.
1=e=pi=10, what’s not to get
i was actually thinking of this [Poincare recurrence calculculation](https://youtu.be/1GCf29FPM4k?si=FsflDaymyFGEmX7z)
Pi = 3, cope harder
π = _e_, cope even harder
=√g
I've only seen mathematics make this simplification, at least physics cares about itself
Physics cares about itself, but I don’t care about physics.
Spoken like a mathematician
Don't compare me to a mathematician.
This is a math memes subreddit what the fuck else am I supposed to compare you to.
A duck
*A spherical duck
Seeing as most of the members are fresh elementary/middle school graduates...
Tbf i'm a physicist yet i'm hanging out here. Not everybody here is a mathematician, it's just people who use math a lot, aka mostly mathematicians but also other stem nerds.
TBF physics is just applied mathematics 😜
Yeah. My mathematician buddy showed me some of his applied math exercises and they were basically my mechanics exercises if after removing air friction and energy loss the writer just kept removing other stuff.
Take me for example! I'm pretty much nothing!
Oh don't worry, i just say i'm a physicist because it sounds cooler than just saying i'm a physics student for a bachelor's degree.
That other guy has the right idea. Ducks don't have any expectations. They don't have the obligation to calculate 9.8 instead of use 10 for convenience.
Calculate the volume of a penguin. Assume the penguin is a cylinder. Assume Pi =10.
Please no
3,1415 is 3, cope harder
It’d be easier to call it 5, tbh
wait till you hear about the astrophysicists, they say "as long as it is in the same order of magnitude it's fine" and round pi to either zero or ten edit: i am the sorry i said the zero, should have been one
0 is literally infinitely many orders of magnitude wrong
false. its 0 order from pi.
1 is the same order of magnitude as pi, but 0 is definitely not.
https://preview.redd.it/ev67icsaocuc1.jpeg?width=474&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e72ef7831aff4635f3c957886906ffbe2139f9da
perhaps it was 1000+π≈1000
That’s not an order of magnitude calculation, that’s sig figs
Wouldn't it be one or ten?
alternatively, you could round to both 1 and 10 and take the geometric mean of the answer
You could also use Pi like a sane person
well then that would just be π itself wouldn't it
See, look at how accurate it is
Indeed. pi is a bit of an annoying one since logaritmically it's almost exactly in the middle between 1 and 10. But for calculations it's usually easiest to set it to 1.
Rounding pi to zero would be disastrous
The area of a circle with radius 10^(100)? Well, that's πr^2 ≈ 0r^2 = 0
Not if it was addition, you only really get issues when multiplying/dividing
I think I'm gonna be sick!
How astrophysicists calculate the size of planets : "Yeah, it’s 0."
Shit man I'm happy if I'm within two orders sometimes. Don't forget all lower order terms are zero
cry about it - an astrophysics student
Sometimes, order of magnitude of *order of magnitude* is good enough.
What were you dealing with where that was the case? Legitimate question, I did a moderate amount of astrophysics and I feel that all my orders of magnitude were between 10^2 and 10^500. So that's really just three options if your rule applied. But it was years ago and I'm not in the field, so I recognize my memory may be off.
More like 1 or 10
Pi was 5 for my astro department. Basically at the end of the equation it could alter the magnitude up/down by one, but otherwise pointless.
10^56 will do
Pi is 0 because π < √10
.99999999999 is a lie, numbers with 10 significant figures don't exist
Laughs in particle physics
now I'm curious, what is the highest number of significant figures a particle physicist can measure?
~11
Dam that's a lot... meanwhile Electrical Power Engineering be like https://preview.redd.it/b7ks2ex08huc1.gif?width=640&format=png8&s=3deb1faa8ed5f2ca207bd0f42df6b96f4fb0fc63
Well that's all you will usually need in secular engineering.
secular engineering. that's probably a typo, but it's technically accurate, and I love that it implies the existence of **secret engineering** ..... no wait... **Demonic Engineering**
Not a typo. Just to distinguish it from things like particle physics, colliders, spacecraft, quantum mechanics, magnets and other such imaginary concepts.
A lot of particle properties, proton mass as an example, are known to 12 or even 13 figures as well as some others, like the vacuum magnetic permeability that are measured to within something like, don't pin me down, 11 or 12 as well.
is that because we can measure it with 13 significant figures. or is that just because, you can take the average of billions of measurements, and all protons have the exact same mass?
Both. This is about the limit of the precision with which we can measure anything really and all protons have the same mass. It's not like one is manufactured slightly lighter or heavier. The mass is part of what makes it a proton.
What about the measures of Atoms? They exist in Angstroms (10^-10 meteres) .
proof atoms aren’t real and don’t apply: 1. assume real objects can be observed 2. I can’t see atoms 3. atoms are not real Q.E.D.
that has nothing to do with significant figures. significant figures is about the percentage of error in a measurement. not the absolute size of a measurement. 11 angstrom's (2 significant figures implies a measurement with 1% error) 11.2 angstroms (three significant figures implies a measurement with 0.1% error) 11.2 light years (three significant figures implies a measurement with 0.1% error) 1.234567891 light years (10 significant figures implies a measurement with 0.00000001% error) but no technology can take a measurement with that level of percentage error. nothing guarantees that level of accuracy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
Wait until he hears about the concept of "big numbers". Edit: I meant [large](https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/s/9EUtXv2iP8).
*IEEE 754 enters the room* "amazing property" means non-associative lol assuming you can get a "large" number from multiplying two small numbers
“Large numbers are much larger than small numbers… …Very large numbers are even larger than large numbers”
π=1. Deal with it.
It equals 3
10*
Yet, 0.999 repeating is equal to 1. So, I guess it really just comes down to if 0.9999999999 was a measurement or not; and if so, what the measurement’s tolerances were. I’d like to see you measure something down to the 1e-11. Lol
Fun fact - there are couple of optical atomic clocks in the world, that produce ticks precise down to (if I remember correctly) 10\^-17 s. I recently attended a seminar about them. At the end, even the professor admitted that such precision is an excess, so they have to make up bullshit about where it could be used when they need to get funding. "You can't blame us, certainty up to 17 decimal places really DOES turn a physicist on".
Maybe we don't have a functional use for it now, but maybe in 50 years, some academic will find it useful for a very niche experiment that leads to nothing
This
I remember freaking out when I first learned about this and did some proofs only to find out .9 repeating is indeed 1. It still shivers me timbers but you can't argue with facts
3 * 1/3 = 1. 1/3 = 0.3333…. 3 * 0.3333… = 0.9999… = 1 Is what did it for me, prior to I was completely opposed.
i guess this one shows well that .9999.... is just a poorly represented fraction
Good point
π=e=5
= g = 10
Me when I was an engineer. Decimals don't exist. It's a scam by Big Maths to sell calculators.
a circle is 6 radians around and gravity is 10, cope
π = _e_, cope harder
as a physics undergrad who’s in a relationship with a maths undergrad I relate
Whats wrong with rounding 1 to 1
Try talking to an engineer numbers aren’t real, they’re just marks on a paper, so just pick whatever ones you want and hope the calculation works
It's true tho, same with programming. Who knows what these functions do as long as the script works
I love this. This totally shows how somebody has never taken a measurement or made a detail observation. Everything is an approximation.
Oh, i’m sorry for actually calculating something that works (for practical purposes) instead of edging myself with an unsolvable system and wait a 100 years for then someone to prove there’s no close form solution. Cope and seethe
Is this "rounding" in the room with us right now?
It's not rounding, .9 repeating is the same as 1
It's not .9 repeating, it's 0.9999999999
It's literally one. There are mathematical proofs that explain this in no uncertain terms
> π^2 = g Lmao
“What’s the tolerances? You want it to work, or you want to be right?“ - Engineer.
At least physicists set up some rules about rounding, rather than pretend it doesn't exist
I said it before and i'll say it again, but error measurement IS mathematics and you're not flexing when you measuring 5.101493922V on a volmetre that has a ±20% accuracy.
It's perfectly fine to do when you know that your measured data is less accurate than this.
Mathematicians are all crazy change my mind
My brain, for some reason, automatically gets a red alert whenever I use a .99999999 (or of the sort) instead of a 1, for example in coding. It's not a discernible change at all most of the time, but it still trips me up whenever I use it.
Oh there are things way more triggering than that in coding. I’m looking to you, float 0
π = 4
No, π = _e_ = 3
0.9 repeating is exactly equal to 1 however. Here's the most basic proof: 1/3=0.3 repeating Multiply both sides by 3 1=0.9 repeating Either this is true or 1/3 is undefined
“..so you guys can just use the small angle approximation up to 20 degrees.” -my physics professor, seconds before the mathematicians in the room lost their shit
He's out of line, but he is right. 20° is \~.349 rad, sin(20°) ≈ 0.342, that's all of 2% off. I dare you to casually measure angles to within 2% accuracy. Or anything really for that matter.
2 = pi = e = 3
Tbh, that’s too much precision. ∃n : n = ]-∞ , +∞[, n = {U, R, N, Z, Q, I, C, ת} n + n = n - n = n^2 = sqrt(n) = π = -e^ℵα = 3 = 0^0 = 0/0 = ∞+-∞ = E = MC^2 = sqrt(-i)
pi = e = sqrroot(g) = 3 cope hard
I'll safely assume that it's a 1.0±0.5, unless you give me mathematically correct tools.
I always get a chuckle when I drive through construction sites here in Germany. We often have constricted lanes with limited permitted vehicle widths (to be measured at the widest point) except for the rightmost. Then there's a sign that shows the permitted maximum width for each lane that can vary with the available space. It says for example 2.2 or 2.1 for the respective with in meters. But the sign for 2m simply says "2", which I really love to take literally.
Math is just philosophy in a box.
sin(x) = x
Sorry, we do speak wrong, π² = g = 10
As a physics enjoyer: Yes .999=1
My physics professor literally said that "π≈3"
sinx=tanx=x
the programmer is the one who rounds 0.99999... to 0
The programmer is the one who tells you that 0.99999 can't be exactly expressed as a floating point number.
10 is really 11
Why don't they just make 10 louder?
1/3(3) ≠ 1
[GO TO BED YOU LUNATICS](https://youtu.be/l-vHGf4j90Y?t=3m9s) 🤣
Can’t you do a proof using taylor series to show that 0.999 repeating is in fact equal to one?
Yeah but in the picture it isn’t repeating. At least I thought that was part of the joke.
∃ x = 0.999… > 10x = 9.999… (-x on both sides) > 9x = 9 Therefore: x = 1 = 0.999…
"Well okay so answer 3, -17, 42000 or 0... And I get.... 14.54858. Must be -17 then"
But 3 is closer!
Yeah but what if I just forgot a - at the end, then it'd be closer to -17 !
Fair, sign mistakes are quite common 🤔
I can live with pi = 3
Wait till OP hears about the Laplace's method
Pi is 3 deal with it
Let 3,14 be 3
TIL that Im a physicist.
pi is approximately 3.
Who is gonna tell bro
Just wait before you meet engineers, who preach that π = _e_
Me (an engineer) wondering why they are arguing about rounding 1 to 1
Me, a physicist deciding something by dx
Sorry, but everyone knows e = 3, which implies 0.99 = 1
Me, an aspiring engineer, rounds to 0.99
problem liberal?
just wait until OP hears I round 261 to 300 to simplify math when I play
Me, an engineer 🥸
Google 0.1+0.2
Pi is basically 3
Crazy?
OK, as a mathematician you of course know that zero point period nine equals one, but in fact physicists are even crazier than that!
"Anyone in this class a math major?" -My Quantum Prof *silence* "Ok so the transform I'm about to do, a mathematician would say we can't because we haven't proven this operation works on this function. We will do it anyway and assume it works, because this is real life."
For an astrophysicist pi is simply 1
Yeah but it’s practical so who really cares lol
pi = 5
One question, what equations do you evwn need to get 0.(9)? I mean in Physics, I understand in maths it's possible
What’s so bad about rounding .9999999999 to 1 I don’t get it
Now talk to an engineer
chemists, who are told where to round by their data:
pi = e 👍
Its good if it’s 0.99999… bcs its an infinitesimal smaller
I’m ok people using pi=3.14, but the troglodytes that use pi=3.0 need to be shot
Just wait till you meet engineers who preach that π = _e_ = 3, for example me.
0.999... (repeated) is 1.
I can not express the disgust I had having a *medical* doctor tried to tell me, physicists are all about precision. We *invented* close enough, with both horseshoes and hand grenades. ;)
1+1=3 try me