/lounge/ - sushi social

The last number isn't your decimals, it's the part that was left undivided, eg. 16+(3/4) = 16.75

I don't understand the first 2 lines.

What is even happening?

>>4912
OP is doing long division to calculate 67/4. At the top you write how many times 4 goes into a certain place value (multiple of 10).

67 = 40 + 24 + 2.8 + 0.2, but OP forgot to separate the last two.

The three is actually to be divided by the 4 as well, where 3/4 is .75 (or if you like, 75% of a 1)

>>4922
Oh, now i get it; thanks.

I can't math today; too hungry for pie.

>>18711
Sir Isaac Newton vs Bill Nye. Epic Rap Battles of History

>>4917
>what is even happening?
The divisor is on the left, the dividend on the right and the quotient above everything. You're probally just like me who is used to see it sideways like this.

There are 18 groups in the periodic table
There are 18 infinite families of finite simple groups
Coincidence? Most probably, but it's a very intriguing coincidence

>>21899
I don't know what any of this means

>>21900
Groups are mathematical objects that encode and describe the concept of symmetry in a more general and abstract sense where we understand "symmetry" to mean "invariant under transformation", like when we say that polygons are symmetric it is because they can be rotated and reflected in ways that don't change their appearance. To be more precise a group consists of all transformations that preserve some property of an object/space/whatever the transformation acts on. ( To be even more precise, a group is a set G equipped with an associative binary operation satisfying two properties. The first property is that there exists an element called the identity in G such that the identity composed with any other element x in G is x. The second property is that for any element x in G there exists an element y in G such that x compose y and y compose x is the identity. The equivalence of this definition and the concept of symmetry can be derived from cayley's theorem and the concept of group action. )
A very important result in group theory is the jordan holder theorem, which in an indirect way, states that all FINITE (the condition of it being finite is important) groups can be decomposed into other smaller and simpler finite groups and the groups that can not be decomposed any further are called the finite simple groups.
All finite groups can be constructed by re-combining or "binding" these finite simple groups together analogous to how compounds and molecules can be constructed by binding together atoms. These finite simple groups can be very neatly classified into 18 families with 26 special groups, called the sporadic groups, left out of the 18 families because they don't fit.
My post and image is simply pointing out the coincidental similarity between finite simple groups and the periodic table of elements.

>>21901
can you dumb it down more, maybe explain it with anime girls? >>21901

>>21881
Who knew mathematicians were so catty

>>21922
Oh I hated that video. There were many things that were so grossly oversimplified to the point of misinformation, he also skipped a lot of nuances which is somewhat understandable because this is meant to be a video for a general audience, but his explanation of the axiom of choice, the main topic of the whole video, was so off. The reason we have an axiom of choice isn't because algorithms are incapable of producing random results (or "math formulas can't give random results. we need rules to choose" as he said) because one can simply using existential instantiation, something built into logic, to pick an arbitrary element from a non-empty set. The problem arises from the fact that picking an arbitrary element from infinitely many non-empty sets would require you to use existential instantiation infinitely many times, which is not built into logic and would require you to write an infinitely long proof or use transfinite induction (which is a theorem of ZF + axiom of choice and thus you would be simply using the axiom of choice indirectly).
There are many other things I could criticize in that video but I don't want to waste too much time on this.

By the way, this gross simplification and skipping of nuances is something I've noticed in a lot his recent videos too, especially the physics ones like feynman's quantum path integral formulation and noether's theorem, and it makes me wonder if all his videos are like this, but I simply don't notice because I only have an deep understanding of math and physics and not the other topics he talks about.
I know that I should be treating his videos as more entertainment than actual education and information, like all pop-sci content out there. They're made for a general audience so there is going to be some contortion of the facts to make things interesting/clickbait-y and a huge lack of rigor so that everyone can (only somewhat) understand and follow; however, a lot of the people watching take these videos as an actual substitute for textbooks and lectures and it is this process that creates a lot of the pseudo-intellectuals out there (think of a redditor) and gives fuel to the arrogance of cranks and midwits. I don't want to be an elitist but if you want to actually learn something, use actual academic sources, and do not speak like a know-it-all because you listened to neil degrasse tyson's ramblings.

>>21921
I thought I did a really good job of dumbing everything down…