/sci/ Numberg

View Same Yandex ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

48x47

e.png

🧵 Numberg

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 22:10:19 UTC No. 16176234

Jewish ass number
Literally discovered because of interests

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 01:41:10 UTC No. 16176468

Thank you based Jews.

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 01:46:22 UTC No. 16176477

The most Jewish numbers:
1) e
2) 6 000 000

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 10:28:14 UTC No. 16176887

>>16176234
it wasn’t discovered that way. it first appeared in log tables. but it’s not clear if Napier, Briggs. etc. knew the significance. Logarithms weren’t functions, they were just tables so it was attempted to make a logarithmic function by using derivatives and later e appears as a bound for which area under 1/x is exactly 1. Will post later if I have time

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 18:26:10 UTC No. 16177245

>>16176234
there are more transcendental numbers than real numbers

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 18:58:54 UTC No. 16177282

>>16177245
Source?

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 19:19:40 UTC No. 16177311

>>16176234
>Euler's number
>wasn't even discovered by Euler

Anonymous at Wed, 15 May 2024 19:51:55 UTC No. 16177353

>>16177311
It's called Napier's number in civilized countries.

Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 06:35:36 UTC No. 16178000

>>16176887
>>16176234
(1/2)
Logarithms were initially just calculating tables.
>2: 1
>4: 2
>8: 3
>16: 4
>32: 5
>...
You can see how multiplication is turned to addition and extraction of roots to division, but it's not really practical unless you use a base very close to 1 since the gaps grow fast. Using base 1.01:
>1.01: 1
>1.02: 2
>1.03: 3
>1.04: 4
>...
A number close to e appears here in the 100th entry. Had we used a smaller base like 1.001, then a number closer to e would have occurred in the 1000th entry because:
[math]You're going from (1+1/100)^{100} to (1+1/100)^{1000}[/math]

Then the question posed itself. Log tables are discontinuous. Can we find a function that makes log tables continuous?

Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 06:37:41 UTC No. 16178002

>You′regoingfrom(1+1/100)100to(1+1/100)1000
You're going from [math](1+1/100)^{100}[/math] to [math](1+1/1000)^{1000}[/math]

View Same Yandex ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

798x1200

1516383181529.jpg

Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 07:04:55 UTC No. 16178015

>>16176234
>Jewish ass number
Looks like the phenotype wins again

Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 08:13:41 UTC No. 16178072

>>16177282
my dad, he knows a lot :)

Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 08:16:25 UTC No. 16178074

>>16178072
Funny how your mom never mentioned that to me

Anonymous at Thu, 16 May 2024 18:15:46 UTC No. 16178677

>>16177245
Both are uncountably infinite, so there are equally as many.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 13:08:52 UTC No. 16179789

>>16177353
even though e or numbers close to it made subtle appearances in log tables, it’s not clear if Napier was aware

Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 13:12:40 UTC No. 16179792

>>16178677
I don't believe in infinities, only in things you can actually list.
If you can't show it to me or measure it in a lab, I doesn't exist, this is basic science.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 14:27:37 UTC No. 16179931

>>16179792
I’ve made a list here:
1: infinity

Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 15:07:44 UTC No. 16179991

>>16179792
>only in things you can actually list.
mh, so given that the mechanism behind the diagonal argument is the same as the one behind the proof for the halting problem, are you asserting that *insert your preferred name for the machine that turing's proof says can't exist here* exists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwNxVpbEVcc

Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 15:40:52 UTC No. 16180018

>>16179991
No, I don't make assertions about existence for which I cannot actually point to an element exists.
Other questions?

Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 16:20:04 UTC No. 16180081

>>16176234
>Literally discovered because of interests
Because of whose interests?

Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 18:09:02 UTC No. 16180206

>>16180018
-> Infinity
there I just pointed to it

Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 18:12:15 UTC No. 16180212

>>16180206
ah yes... take your meds.

Anonymous at Fri, 17 May 2024 18:36:57 UTC No. 16180254

>>16177245
lmao retard

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 05:10:21 UTC No. 16181027

>>16176234
what about nuremberg

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 21:38:40 UTC No. 16182026

It really is a jewish number. You can model a typical mortgage scenario and observe by comparing the compound interest method ($ P(1+r)^{t} $) to the $ e^{r*t} $ differential method that a buyer who can afford to spend no more than $1000/month on mortgage payments for a 30 year payment plan with an annual interest of 4%, where the interest is credited once, is ripped off and makes less headway on his loan balance after 10, 15, 20, 30 years than he does by traditional compound interest

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 21:56:31 UTC No. 16182046

>>16176477
Check'd based underrated post

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 22:12:14 UTC No. 16182060

>>16177245
>>16178677
>>16179991
Uncountability is unfalsifiable bullshit. Every real number has a finite definition or expression, meaning you can arrange the real numbers in increasing size according to the length of their finite definition, so they are countable. This is only impossible if there are “real” numbers that cannot be expressed or represented by any sort of infinite sum, limit, or description of any sort, and could only be represented by the full infinite list of digits. The problem is that no one has ever proven that these numbers exist according to the properties of the real numbers, and even if they do “exist,” we will never interact with them in any way, so they are useless.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 09:51:59 UTC No. 16182549

>>16176887
>Logarithms weren’t functions, they were just tables
Functions are (implicit) tables.
It's a mapping from one value to another.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 21:23:07 UTC No. 16183335

>>16182060
>o they are useless.
oh, like you, you know i kind of your point when you put it like that