Thread #16943206
File: ackchyually.png (28.5 KB)
28.5 KB PNG
Look at the definition of the binomial coefficient on Wikipedia
>In mathematics, the binomial coefficients are the positive integers that occur as coefficients in the binomial theorem. Commonly, a binomial coefficient is indexed by a pair of integers n ≥ k ≥ 0 and is written [Newton's symbol goes here]
>It is the coefficient of the xk term in the polynomial expansion of the binomial power (1 + x)n; this coefficient can be computed by the multiplicative formula
meanwhile check out the Wikipedia definition for car
>A car, or an automobile, is a motor vehicle with wheels. Most definitions of cars state that they run primarily on roads, seat 1-8 people, have four wheels, and mainly transport people rather than cargo.[1][2] There are over 1.6 billion cars in use worldwide as of 2025.
if a math nerd guy wrote this definition, he would define a car such:
>a function of four positive integer arguments, defined by
>wheels
>motor
>chassis
>suspension
>whereby the chassis sets the limit of the function and the motor is the force vector, which brings momentum
if the car definition guy wrote the definition for the binomial coefficient, he would write this
>a coefficient used in combinatorics which, among other things, serves to calculate the chance of drawing a sequence of a certain length whose terms are identical to the terms of the sequence drawn from a set, for example the chance of hitting jackpot in powerball
Why are mathematicians such cunts?
On the Internet more and more people are noticing mathematicians make math seem more difficult than it really is because they are afraid of competition and they don't want REEE NORMIES to start entering their assburger-hobby field
43 RepliesView Thread
Showing all 43 replies.>>
>>
>>16943210
you are the retard.
there are some mathematicians who put in the effort to grasp the spirit of mathematics and not just follow the letter of the law, but the vast majority of mathematicians look down on these and nitpick whatever supposed errors/oversimplifications they can find and consider them basically persona non grata, and they do all that with the typical flair of a snotty arrogant sperg, they're cunts
you're essentially confusing what ought to be a textbook/encyclopedic definition, with a RECIPE
also, the simpler definition in the OP is equally watertight, it's just more limited but it explains what it is (how it works) better. the Wikipedia definition meanwhile is more technically complete but also superficial and minimalistic
>>
>>16943220
>there are some mathematicians who put in the effort to grasp the spirit of mathematics and not just follow the letter of the law
>>
>>
>>
>>16943248
thread is about the pedagogy of mathematics and why it sucks so hard
and how can we begin to reform it?
wikipedia's math articles are notoriously technical in the way they are written, very rigorous usually, not bad, but not friendly to beginners. but then who are they for?
it's weird because every other article is more or less friendly to beginners so much so that a tryhard pseud can just skim wikipedia on these other topics and pretend like he knows shit
but then again its not just wikipedia, so many math textbooks are written just as obscurely, i guess thats why wiki sucks so much on math, they just copy shit from these worst bricks that the biggest pain in the ass professors shill in college
>>
>>
>>
>>16943228
>You are not welcome here
This thread topic would be about Pure Mathematics and Linguistics. Do you have expertise in either of these fields?
>attention whoring /x/ fag
Airing your opinions unrelated to the thread topic but your personal feelngs is base egoism. I have written about OP's issue tangentially in several threads.
>I am genuinely sick
Exhibit A;
>seeing your bullshit.
Exhibit B;
>I physically can't stand you
Exhibit C;
You see, thread, the posts are always about them towards me, never anything else or "merely implied" (/x/).
>>
>>
>>
>>16943337
>/x/ is more your speed
Thats a girl board, here is a boy board, you wanna spout a bunch of bullshit...thats >>>/x/.
t.Development Psychology, the process of Cognization
>>16943220
>the spirit of mathematics and not just follow the letter of the law
Thats what I do. Theres a time and place for that, its the reason I dont post in certain kinds of threads. Not because I couldnt, but because I would just warp their thread with different "Maths thinking directions" when if their trying to learn or practice it can screw them up.
>whatever supposed errors
From overreliance on other definitions.
>oversimplifications
And overlooking axiomatic utility.
Its how you make "crisis in the foundation".
>>
>>16943349
>on other definitions
Where everything's definition is some other lateral component/thing, and nothing at the foundation, so the field can drift without anyon knowing because all the calibrating definituons are set to themselves; circular.
I found this when looking for the definition to the number 1. It kind of...just trails off. Its number, but also not because its a "unit", but the definition of 2 is "not number and not number".
The implications become very retarded very quickly.
>>
>>16943352
>everything's definition
And the rest of it would be a bunch of technical stuff supporting other Maths, confusing the "interoperability" with rigor.
Like, yeah mf...if you change shit so its focused on certain attributed it will "be" that thing, but if it touches reality then I side on the reality side. Arbitrary has a place, just isnt Applied Mathematics.
>>
>>16943220
The letter of the law *is* the spirit of mathematics. Literally the whole point is to define terms and logical structure rigorously and without ambiguity.
Hell, "letter of the law" is downstream of this spirit. The reason "legalese" has grown so opaque over the course of human civilization is because legal interpretation is so wrought with people who seek to contort any semblance of ambiguity to their own ends.
>>
>>16943371
>people who seek to contort any semblance of ambiguity to their own ends
Fair point, I have to count all of these for Applied, not everyone does/needs to, and work backwards, forming the Law from the sample set. I then compare works with each other.
But the very seeking of "and without ambiguity" starts a clock or adding shit to the definition until its pages long or totally different all together to fit the current era's Maths, hence "lost 1". In Applied it made "0" not be define as "null" but closer to "converging"....ah shit, lost "0".
:skull:
>>
>>16943341
>>16943349
>>16943352
>>16943361
>>16943379
shut up schizo
make a concise point
or leave, and stop shitting up the thread
oh wait you cant because youre a schizo and as all schizos you're selfish and as all schizos you must shit out your stream of consciousness verbal diarrhea
>>
>>
>>16943386
>make a concise point
>>16943379
>Fair point, I have to count all of these for Applied, not everyone does/needs to, and work backwards, forming the Law from the sample set.
I DID.
YOU HAVE SCHIZOPHRENIA LIKE YOUR PARENTS AND FRIENDS, STEREOTYPICAL MALADJUSTED HUEMANS.
>youre a schizo
>all schizos you're selfish
Was Psychology or Psychiatry your thesis, or are you )))forgetting((( who you are again...lost in "Anonymity"?
>your stream of consciousness
>>16943334
>This thread topic would be about Pure Mathematics and Linguistics. Do you have expertise in either of these fields?
Almost every post you responded to was on topic....you are not, how does this not correlate to Pure Mathematics or Linguistics? you are shitting up the thread with your (((derangement syndrome))).
>>
>"I like smart people."
>This inversely means more of whats wrong about you will become appearant to yourself.
>They immediately hate what they see.
>Revealing to me their self hatred and unwillingness to endure the shame of losing face in front of themselves.
You dont like intelligence, you want to *be* what "is intelligent"...how self referencial and kinky. "Auto-ascending".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>16943553
Atleast keep the posting under the broader scope of "Crisises of Maths" and not your emotional signaling to "gather the town to lynch an outsider".
/mu/NT GANG!!!
https://youtu.be/SDwqgB0VwrM
>>
>>16943206
thats just another reason to punch miggers anywhere you see them.
>>16943210
fuck you migger.
>>
>>16943625
>https://youtu.be/SDwqgB0VwrM [Embed]
Doing my part by downvoting these videos.
What a retard.
>>
>>
Gentlemen, I believe thus far both arguments have reached their final phase of equal retardation, and I urge both parties to get a mandatory psychological evaluation from your respective departments.
>t.PhD, Theoretical physics
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>16944309
>>16944309
>one of my march posts
>(several reee posts)
You people literally lie in every post to posture and LARP...faux coversations because youre having them in front of people instead of with me...because you know youre lying.
>>
Remember how Bertrand Russel spent 300 pages just proving that 1+1=2? If you want to literally build math out of set theory using the successor function and all that bullshit, it takes 300 pages. Instead what we use in practice is naive set theory, and as a thinking tool for proofs in other fields.
Reading another mathematicians proof is like digging through their shit. Thinking that all proofs are equivalent is just plain wrong. Truly objective, computer verifiable proofs are only used on especially difficult problems.
Being informal doesn't mean being imprecise. That wikipedia definition looks dense because it references many other named math objects and it needs to be stated in precise language so that mathematicians are sure they are talking about the same thing.
>>
>300 pages just proving that 1+1=2
>I found this when looking for the definition to the number 1.
One shitpost thread like a couple years ago destroyed 300 pages of Bertrand's shrill cynicism. Thats the "counter point" to his "point", that his work had no foundation and its circularly defined.
>the spirit of mathematics
He lacked..."Spirit".
>"Why I am not a Christian."
Womp womp.
>It kind of...just trails off. Its number, but also not because its a "unit", but the definition of 2 is "not number and not number".
He didnt even know what 1+1 equals...
>>
>>
>>
>>16943206
it's not mathematicians, it's wikipedists. they replaced most definitions with ones that introduces the particular topic as a particular case of a much more abstract notion, which in turn is invoked as a show-off. listen cunt, do you think if I knew your more abstract notion, would I wiki the simpler one at all?
>>
>>
>>16945933
He's severally Autistic, and when he says "remember" its under the assumption you may also have this memory, but in case you dont he posits it this way. Garden variety case, helpful if they have a spark.
>>16947785
>AI == chatbots powered by LLMs
Without an understanding of "implications" they cant "do Physics" per se, the protein fold stuff was too Maths centric to count here.
Same reason why they cant make full glasses of wine. Only partially filled. It would, in relative comparison, "have to do Physics" to make that image, since pictures of them are virtually all partially filled.
>>
>>
>>16952776
[puts hand on shoulder]
...I know, because the teachers you learn from are being invalidated in real time and its being spearheaded by myself personally.
>schtizo /x/ fag
...because you professors are still "Safe & Effevtive" Nd have totally lost the plot in rigor but you havnt fully comprehended that.
>>16956898
...in all fields, right now....ts easier to blame the thing you dont understand than the thing you think you do but do not.
[looks at thread topic]
Ah, Linguistics+Mathematics (STEM in general). Yeah, I feel a "reconsolidation" of what things are called, how theyre defined, etc, as has happened many times in the past.