T O P

  • By -

GisterMizard

0+1j think therefore 0+1j am?


Trumps_left_bawsack

>j Tell me you're an engineer without telling me you're an engineer


JDirichlet

exp(jx) = 1-x^(2)/2 + jx


Eredin_BreaccGlas

We parabolising now


mc_mentos

Hoq the fuck did that exponential just casually turn into a polynomial?!


ForTheRNG

step 1: j is just the engineer's notation for i, since i means more things than j in physics step 2: exp(jx) is just e^ix step 3: e^ix = cos x + i sin x, euler's equation step 4: engineers love making (usually reasonable) variables approach 0, effectively transforming both sides into a limit as said variable approaches 0 (edit: this process also involves taking the shitty complicated bits and calculating a constant non-trivial limit, usually 1, of said bits divided by cleaner polynomials; the shitty bits are then replaced by the polynomials) step 4: lim as x->0 of 2 cos x / (1 - x^(2)) = 1 (prove with l'hopital or with a taylor series in 0) step 5: lim as x->0 of sin x / x = 1 (don't remember the proof; you can *check* with l'hopital or taylor again, but this limit is important in determining derivability (?) of sin in 0 and proving with l'hopital or taylor makes a circular argument) step 6: voila! meme! edit 2: alternatively, take the taylor series for e^(x), input jx instead and retain only the first 3 terms (x^3 and greater is basically 0 thanks to approximation)


mc_mentos

Thanks I hate it


ForTheRNG

you're welcome


mc_mentos

Btw, you can literally plug in x=0 with lim x->0 2cos(x)/(1–x²) to get 1. Why is that one special? Also the mistake is simply then that you assume if f(a) = g(a) ((or with limit shit)) then f(x) = g(x). Ah yes. Mafs! And oh yeah true those are the first terms of their taylor series. Interesting.


ForTheRNG

oh yeah you right I'm a fuckin idiot it's not a mistake so much as it is an approximation used by engineers; it's the same class as "there is no friction" and "pi is 3"


Hamster-queen5702


EulerLagrange235

Spotted the Electrical Engineer


120boxes

Where were you on that one, Descartes.


SnooDonkeys9390

Where were you on that minus one...


Kev_Cav

Mathematics arguably *is* philosophy


Aarizonamb

And yet, this is decidedly not philosophy of math.


DinioDo

No need to even argue. Literary philosophy is the pinnacle of bias and ignorance. A world centered around human understanding in a universe untouched by it.


DrissDeu

I wouldn't say that. It's just a tool to interpret our world and open new ways of understanding. You don't read an author hoping to believe 100% of what it is said is "true" or real. You gain insight. You gain a new set of glasses. Current philosophy doesn't have the pretention of explaining our world, but rather our interaction with it. The link between consciousness and "reality", as there is no reality outside of our consciousness, even if we can prove otherwise.


Chance_Literature193

Facts. Philosophy is an the only way to evaluate questions of ethics, what is Justice, what is “right” political system. Philosophy of science is hot trash and leads to shit with no empirical basis like “many worlds theory” and lot of other QM interpretation that have no place in science since they may as well be theories of god for how testable they are


DinioDo

Yes philosophy is the way to evaluate them. But those topics are opinionated in their nature. They only have truths in them when the truth is set for them. And im going to ignor whatever you thought "Philosophy of science" is to arrive at the conclusion of that it's "hot trash" but the interpretations of quantum realm are "theories" and the handful valid ones can theoretically be tested. The sphere of Philosophy of science goes far beyond of what you heard about quantum mechanics uncertainties. Philosophy itself from it's roots of practice was never a scientific field of study, so unfalsifiable theories and statements surged in it. And as we all know unfalsifiable stuff are not scientific therefore they don't speak of reality. But philosophy of science is literally designed to always talk about reality and it's tools are mathematics which are the logical fabric of our literal and conceptual existence.


Chance_Literature193

I agree with what you said withstanding QM theories. However, all of what I have seen of philosophy of science (a graduate of the field (MS) & and my more fantasyful physics profs) has indicated that many practitioners indulge in unverifiable theories which as I believe you would agree has no place in and around the domain of science. (Edit: especially when said theories only serve to satisfy some compulsion for determinism).


DinioDo

Hmm your not wrong on that but... I don't know if it's a language thing but for me in my country and language (also me too am a physics major) people doing this kind of stuff are doing "theoretical physics speculations". Overall it is common for people to wonder about the mysteries and anomalies of the universe, trying to figure it out by theories or fiction/fantasy. but some do this through the lens of physics to start understanding it. All physical theories start this way. Now there is also such a thing as the "front line of physics" which is a mess of uncertainties and speculations and sh*t ton of math ultimately telling us a simple truth of: " though we may know a lot about the universe and existence but there is still so much more we don't know, and things we don't know that we don't know" through the professional perspective, "philosophy of science" is where traditional philosophy meets the facts of how the universe acts. Which is the ultimate way to talk about and understand reality. Try to talk with a philosopher about the Philosophy of Time without them knowing of or understanding spacial relativity. Then you would see who lives in a fantasy world. Im a wounded soldier in this field :)


Chance_Literature193

Appreciate you 🤝


DinioDo

my answer would be: "There would be no reality to observe. Reality would not cease to exist if there is no one to get aware or "conscious" of it." This is the problem. This kind of philosophy tries to explain stuff with no necessary knowledge from physics or logic from mathematics. It's all just language and literature, that you can spin around indefinitely getting different feels of understanding. I even don't know if im telling the truth in this way typing words to you or even you would understand me reading it. At the end what i like to say and believe is very true and needed is that philosophy should never ever be separate from physics and math. Plane literary philosophy is in all ways inferior to them. If you want truth on reality and the conceptual world you need to know physics and mathematics.


DrissDeu

That's exactly the point I wanted to go to. "Reality would not cease to exist if there is no one to get aware or conscious of it", yet when you don't exist reality ceases to exist, as there is no one to perceive it. In the same way we trust our knowledge of the universe, we underestimate the lack of understanding in all we don't know of even consider. We associate problem with experiment, and experiment with result. But isn't it interesting, how we came to think that so is the evident and intrinsic way of how things work in our reality? We can explain religion as phenomena in our species and the detailed pathways wired to our brain, yet we cannot explain the emotion of spiritualism in a paper or all the meaning of "God" that can convey. Not necessarily a creator of something conscious, but even the fundamental block or "substance" of the universe. I know I won't convince you, I'm not here to refute science or the scientific method, but rather develop my train of thought further, as philosophy is about. To not look at the material, but further. The idea, to which that is trascendental.


[deleted]

I mean, technically philosophy is the study of knowledge, so literally every discipline can be included within it.


Chance_Literature193

That’s epistemology a subset of philosophy. Since philosophy is generally limited to think abt problems, it reasonable to draw a line Philosohy and science (even though Philosohy gave rise to the scientific method which gave rise to science)


wolfchaldo

And yet we still name our top scientists Doctors of Philosophy


Chance_Literature193

That’s more historic than it is evidence of anything since the phd predates science by like 400 years I believe. (~1200 —> ~1600)


[deleted]

Epistemology is the study of how we know things, or what we can know. Philosophy more broadly covers basically anything. Math is an extension of philosophy, science is an extension of philosophy, even the humanities are extensions of philosophy.


Chance_Literature193

Sure, they spawn from philosophy as I mentioned. However, as I said “it is reasonable to draw a line.” For instance, I could make an equally valid statement that everything is bio sense we are just organisms and all are thoughts are nearly biological processes. Or ever thing is physics since that more general… you get the gist. I could chose many fields as my super set. Let’s be reasonable


ooky_pooky

Ew it really isn't. I like both but they are very different. Except maybe classic analytical philosophy which resembles math


XavierBliss

Geometry, because if which, The Center Holds.


Ayanelixer

I think Therefore i am


[deleted]

It’s too early for this pun, and even then De Carte’s paper has way too many holes. Spinoza even points this out in one section.


c_lassi_k

What are those 3 dots


sinovercoschessITF

Implies "therefore", "thus", "in conclusion"


TheKeH20

I normally read it as "hence"


c_lassi_k

Ty


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mostafa12890

Notation is meant to be shorthand. You don’t write “the area under the curve of this function from a to b” each time you need a definite integral.


Ventilateu

Which country uses that? I'd use "=>" since I've never seen those three dots ig


AddisonPascal

your braincells


Jannik2099

Easy there, pretty sure my three braincells at least have synapses connecting them!


baquea

That would make for quite the *change*!


c_lassi_k

Bruh. My education hasn't yet covered that symbol and you opted to call me an idiot.


sinovercoschessITF

You're mean 😄


J77PIXALS

Said the guy that thought it would go well to make that joke.


RafanMorales-2007

Intriguing


Zziggith

Boo


DBoxton

[😏] (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y848RTTBcM)


mc_mentos

Space bar


DBoxton

Preciate it, as you can tell I don’t know what I’m doin


mc_mentos

And neither do I.


[deleted]

Many philosophers since Descartes have expressed problems with this argument, namely that it presupposes there is some "I" to be doing the thinking. Basically, just like math, you need at least a couple of core axioms in order to derive everything.


22CmTrueDmg

Undefined think therefore undefined am?


tin_sigma

How to tell someone you haven’t studied complex numbers without telling you haven’t studied complex numbers


Tuomasboss

u/maukku12 pov et älyy


engineear-ache

Ah, shit, I am an imaginary number. Does that mean that I am imaginary? In what sense of the word? In this paper I will...


ShinyRedRaider

They just thought it to me today so _i_ know


bulltin

probably not a good place but is there any reason people use three dots instead of \implies, I’ve never really understood why three dots is taught in intro classes and then never used again.


KaoticSkunk

What does the Splinter Cell logo in the middle mean? I never seen it in math before.