🧵 did I do this right?
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 03:43:16 UTC No. 16205711
hey, based & redpilled Kansan here. saw someone post a math book chart on /pol/ about a month ago and became intrigued. been teaching myself math from the beginning (not sure why ppl consider those Serge Lang books from the beginning but anyway). this Grade K book has no solutions, tho. please tell me whether I got the right answer.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 03:49:27 UTC No. 16205719
btw, they are lines that I drew, right? or do lines have to be straight? I don't remember anything from school
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 03:53:49 UTC No. 16205724
this is very advanced topology
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 04:21:53 UTC No. 16205758
we are witnessing something very special
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 05:31:34 UTC No. 16205799
>>16205711
Conjectures:
>An object slides if and only if it has a flat surface.
>An object rolls if and only if it has a nonflat surface.
>An object stacks if and only if it has two parallel flat surfaces.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 05:39:32 UTC No. 16205804
>>16205799
Those are closer to postulates, silly
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 05:44:25 UTC No. 16205812
it seems you're correct, keep learning, maybe look into more difficult material
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 06:26:39 UTC No. 16205823
>>16205804
Nah, these are propositions that can be independently falsified. For example, I've thought of a counterexample to the first one: a torus has no flat surfaces, yet it slides.
Postulates would be propositions whose falsification would bring the entire theory down with it. Something like "the geometry is Euclidean", "the ground is flat", or "gravity acts downwards".
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 07:06:13 UTC No. 16205856
>>16205799
>An object stacks if and only if it has two parallel flat surfaces.
OP here. a cone is apparently an annoying case in terms of stackability. this book has a cone as stackable (presumably because it can be stacked on top of another solid), whereas other material I've seen thru Google uses your definition, i.e., a solid is stackable iff it's both bottom-stackable and top-stackable.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 07:21:47 UTC No. 16205871
>>16205856
Well, "stackability" isn't standard math terminology AFAIK, so the book is entitled to its own definition. But on the flipside, I'm equally entitled to criticize it as redundant, because it then becomes logically equivalent to slideability, and if this is really the authors' intention then they should state this outright as a theorem (a solid is stackable iff it's slideable).
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 07:26:06 UTC No. 16205876
>>16205711
You forgot to put in your name at the top
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 07:27:33 UTC No. 16205879
>tfw you see this but can't even drop the "this user is underage" on him because he's probably like 25
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 08:11:27 UTC No. 16205909
>>16205879
I'm in my 30s
spent all my 20s getting redpilled on 4chan
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 08:16:45 UTC No. 16205914
>>16205876
yea, I didn't fill in the name, but I spoke "line segment" aloud
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 08:46:31 UTC No. 16205938
>>16205711
>>16205909
Nice bait bro, you showed the chuds who's the boss around here.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 12:26:00 UTC No. 16206060
>>16205938
it's not bait
I'm working through the entire K-8, Alg I, Geometry, and Alg II Common Core curriculum.
then I'm doing precalculus, which is apparently the same thing as college alg + trigonometry? I hope to complete that in one year, two years tops