Sir Isaac Newton’s pick-up line:
’ I wish I was d/du so I could lie tangent to your curves’.
Unfortunately it never worked. He died a virgin.
Kawamura, Katsunori. Letters in Mathematical Physics, Feb2005, Vol. 71 Issue 2, p149
From another recent thread:
8 bananas = 1 steroid
x = negative b, plus or minus the square root of b squared minus 4 a c all over 2 a.
In 10th grade algebra, our teacher played us a song with the quadratic formula as the lyrics (sung how you see it above). Most annoying fuckin song I’ve heard in my life, but here I am in college and I still remember that fuckin formula…so I guess it worked.
E= MC Hammer
[quote]chrismcl wrote:
x = negative b, plus or minus the square root of b squared minus 4 a c all over 2 a.
In 10th grade algebra, our teacher played us a song with the quadratic formula as the lyrics (sung how you see it above). Most annoying fuckin song I’ve heard in my life, but here I am in college and I still remember that fuckin formula…so I guess it worked.[/quote]
That’s to the tune of the Jack-in-the-box song or “Pop Goes the Weasel”, right? I failed math 3 times in high school, and I still remember that thing!!
[quote]TShaw wrote:
Geek on, brothas!
(Geez. And my degrees are in Medieval Studies…[/quote]
Okay then, who’s going to start the Dungeons & Dragons thread? No…really…anyone?? Okay, no, not me either. (Even though Vin Diesel is one of us too…er…one of ‘them’)
No.
No no.
No no no.
I tried D&D once; couldn’t hit the broad side of a 10-foot gelatinous cube with a handful of rice.
Please get back to math:
Here are some patterns people have already noticed in the final digits of the Fibonacci numbers:
- Look at the final digit in each Fibonacci number - the units digit:
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, …
Is there a pattern in the final digits?
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 3, 1, 4, 5, 9, 4, 3, 7, 0, 7, …
Yes!
It takes a while before it is noticeable. In fact, the series is just 60 numbers long and then it repeats the same sequence again and again all the way through the Fibonacci series - for ever. We say the series of final digits repeats with a cycle length of 60. - Suppose we look at the final two digits in the Fibonacci numbers. Do they have a pattern?
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, …
Yes, there is a pattern here too. After Fib(300) the last two digits repeat the same sequence again and again. The cycle length is 300 this time.
So what about the last three digits?
and the last four digits?
and so on??
- For the last three digits, the cycle length is 1,500
- for the last four digits,the cycle length is 15,000 and
- for the last five digits the cycle length is 150,000
- and so on…
…and here’s more, in nature:
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html#rabeecow
[quote]TShaw wrote:
e to the i pi = -1[/quote]
You took my idea, damnit. Now I can’t provide some awesome equation to make myself seem cooler.
veruvius,
I saved you the trial and error. I don’t think it made ME look cooler.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
A^z + B^z = C^z[/quote]
Not true for any z greater than 2. Fermat’s Last Theorem
I think the coolest equation in math is the area under the normal curve. Area=Integral from -infinity to x of (1/sqrt(2pi)*sigma)*e^((-x-mu)^2/2sigma^2) It’s the only unsolvable integral I know off the top of my head (anything of the form e^(-x^2). The proof of the theorem is one of the hardest proofs I’ve ever seen, you need some highly advanced algebra and calculus to do it.
Also, it’s the most important distribution in mathematics, or at least probability. The idea that as N approaches infinity, every distribution approaches normal I’d have to say is really frickin’ cool. Central Limit Theorem all the way. Rock on math dorks. Oh yeah, and to everyone flaming this post, mathematics makes everything possible. Without math, we are nothing more than hunter/gatherers. Maybe farmers at best. Even then, how do you know when do plant and how much to plant? Math. Don’t hate just 'cause we’re stronger and smarter than you.
navier-stokes and euler’s equations, the basics of aerodynamics, I’m not typing that shit up either. search for it.
"integral of E to the X equals to the Function sub U of N.
Am I the only one who got that?"
I didn’t even take the time to look at it 'til you mentioned it, but no…
Sex = Fun 
Berardi’s formula of fitness:
p+c, p+f but never f+c.
[quote]Laxxone wrote:
nephorm wrote:
A^z + B^z = C^z
Not true for any z greater than 2. Fermat’s Last Theorem[/quote]
Yeah, I know… I was joking.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Laxxone wrote:
nephorm wrote:
A^z + B^z = C^z
Not true for any z greater than 2. Fermat’s Last Theorem
Yeah, I know… I was joking.[/quote]
Yeah I figured. Just heard about how it was finally proved, so it was on my mind
L = T - U
and then
dL/dq - d/dt(dL/dqdot) = 0
I think the Lagrangian is pretty nifty.
To hell with Newton.
Schrodinger’s eqn is pretty cool and trippy…I can’t even think of a good way to typeset it…
The CLT is pretty cool the first time around ( the integral is actually fairly easy in a conversion to 2 variables) but the strong law of large numbers is more usefull and interesting.
E=mc^2 doesn’t really do itself justice…now E=(mc^2)/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2) reveals more ‘relativistic’ qualities. (v is velocity, this demonstrates that infinite energy is needed to travle at the speed of light if an object has mass).
I have so many favorites that I can’t even count (in my defense, I’m studying for a doctorate in math).
I can tell you that my ‘favorite’ has to be the BMI calculator…it tells my insurance company that I am obese.
Le Chatelier’s Principle…it is not an equation per say but it pretty much rules all chemical equations.