Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:43:18 UTC No. 16242311

>>16242291
Same but I've never worked a day in my life and I only learned high school math. I'm 24 yrs old, degreeless. Considering my job prospects (supermarket clerk/backbreaking labor) will I ever need to use this formula again?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:08:08 UTC No. 16242371

>>16242291
Though I have used the quadratic formula myself countless times, I actually only literally saw it enough times to memorize it. That includes the time when I was a mathematics tutor as well.
I think that, overall, due to their mainstream popularity, E=mc^2 or the Pythagoras Theorem formulas might be the ones I have seen the most in my five decades of existence.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 14:14:52 UTC No. 16242593

>>16242291
u = R*i and U = Z*I

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 14:20:41 UTC No. 16242600

>>16242291
I never use this formula, just complete the squares instead

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:09:13 UTC No. 16242800

>>16242291
f=ma

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:16:21 UTC No. 16242809

>>16242291
cos^2(x) + sin^2(x) = 1 and pretty much any equivalent trig identity.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:32:09 UTC No. 16242824

>>16242291
Pythagorean theorem easily, not only is it arguably one of the most famous math results but it also is just so incredibly useful in almost every area of math and science imaginable

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:45:37 UTC No. 16242843

rate times time

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:56:19 UTC No. 16242862

>>16242600
That's the same thing with more steps

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:07:41 UTC No. 16242879

>>16242862
When I was young I refused to memorize OP pic and instead used
[math]\displaystyle x = -\frac{b}{2a} \pm \sqrt{\left( \frac{b}{2a} \right)^2 - \frac{c}{a}}[/math]
which is what you get from completing the square directly, without any attempt to rationalize the denominator.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:09:39 UTC No. 16242883

>>16242291
Verification not required.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:13:56 UTC No. 16242894

>>16242879
>which is what you get from completing the square directly, without any attempt to rationalize the denominator

Yes, as I said it's the same thing with more steps. You do the stages separately and then potentially have to rationalise the denominator at the end. You're simply remembering a process rather than an explicit formula.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:22:12 UTC No. 16242911

>>16242894
There is a difference between remember a process you understand and can justify and simply outright memorizing a formula which is how most students approach the quadratic formula. If your suggestion is to derive the formula once and then remember it, that is satisfactory, but not something most students are going to do.

As far as
>have to rationalise the denominator
this is a useful skill in certain contexts (especially when the denominator is a binomial), but is heavily overused in schools, not for the benefit of the students or their education, but in order to force answers into a standard form to make grading easier. Rebelling against such nonsense should be encouraged.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:00:30 UTC No. 16242961

>>16242911
Rationalising the denominator is useful if you have to do further calculations with your answers to the quadratic equation. For example, a student may intuitively be able to calculate [math] \frac{9 + \sqrt{6}}{15} + \frac{7 \sqrt{5}}{5} [/math] using their knowledge of how to add rational numbers, whereas [math] \frac{5}{9 - \sqrt{6}} + \frac{7}{\sqrt{5}} [/math] looks much less approachable. If you're going to need to rationalise the denominator anyway to add/subtract your fractions, it's good to get into the habit of doing it as standard.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:06:37 UTC No. 16242968

>>16242961
>If you're going to need to rationalise the denominator anyway to add/subtract your fractions

*2bh I didn't really mean "need" here, as you could of course just cross-multiply and accept that you'll have irrationals in both the numerator and the denominator. It's more that rationalising the denominators makes the whole calculation a lot neater.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:13:03 UTC No. 16242977

>>16242311
Same. I have been denied a career, relationships (both romantic and platonic), opportunities, hobbies and interests and even family bonds.
Being acoustic and neglected at the same time is a lethal combo. I learned the hard way that in order to pursue careers and degrees you need a lot of support and not just monetary but also emotional and moral too; I didn't get either. My last wish is to one day provide at least the latter to my future kids.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 20:25:58 UTC No. 16243080

>>16242291

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 23:04:12 UTC No. 16243286

>>16242291
E=mc^2

Normies use it as the canonical "math formula" everywhere.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 23:15:04 UTC No. 16243302

for me, it's the gradient of the loglikelihood

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:23:51 UTC No. 16243390

>>16243080
I use this one a ton in my microbiology research

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:28:31 UTC No. 16243395

>>16243080
>tfw this is probably not even particularly difficult but looks so intimidating to me I would never try to learn it

being beaten by getting multiplication tables wrong as a kid was not fun

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:34:08 UTC No. 16243401

>>16243395
It's just a normal curve function lol. 80% of statistics uses it and I don't even bother writing it out since Excel has simple functions for it

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 05:38:23 UTC No. 16243669

>>16242961
You are confusing calculating a value with simplifying an expression, and not even choosing a good example of simplification. (Next time try [math]\tan(75^\circ)[/math].) Yes, rationalizing the denominator is useful sometimes. No, putting things into "standard forms" as a matter of unthinking habit is not good.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 06:40:55 UTC No. 16243724

>>16242862
I know but my brain enjoys doing that over punting the formula in my calculator

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 06:45:27 UTC No. 16243733

>>16243080
good, now integrate that from -inf to x

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 06:47:37 UTC No. 16243736

Extremely useful, should be taught to elementary school children, but sadly very few people understand it.
Heres a nice video that briefly explains ideal gas law
https://youtu.be/KYtoOM-YUbg

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 07:18:25 UTC No. 16243764

>>16243669
>You are confusing calculating a value with simplifying an expression, and not even choosing a good example of simplification. (Next time try tan(75°)
Bro you're just being a contrarian here. I know you wouldn't leave an answer to a question as 5+3+11 instead of 19 on the grounds of "it's the same value either way; I'm not gonna bother with an unnecessary bit of simplification". I think that the other anon's point is that rationalizing the denominator helps to create a more standard appearance for surds, to make it easier for students to learn how to use them and perform calculations with them. It's much easier to spot equivalent expressions if you always write them with a rational denominator.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 07:46:05 UTC No. 16243776

>>16243669
>putting things into "standard forms" as a matter of unthinking habit is not good.
I think that anon's point was that rationalizing the denominator puts surds into a consistent form which is much easier for students (and anyone else actually) to recognize; which helps with learning how to perform calculations using them. It also makes it far easier to identify equivalent irrational expressions.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 07:50:01 UTC No. 16243778

How the fuck has nobody said the area of a triangle or rectangle or circle?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 08:17:16 UTC No. 16243793

>>16243286
came to say this

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 14:00:01 UTC No. 16244116

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 14:24:53 UTC No. 16244135

>>16243778
How often do you need to calculate the areas of circles?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:24:36 UTC No. 16244191

>>16242291
>>16242879
>>16243080
>>16244116
How to remember them all? Like without any card formulas

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:33:12 UTC No. 16244197

>>16244191
same way you learn anything. You do enough problems that anytime you shut your eyes you can see the burnt impring of these formulas on your eyelids.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 16:06:38 UTC No. 16244224

>>16244191
Understand what all the pieces mean and why they are all there.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:25:11 UTC No. 16244310

Is there any intuitive logic for solving third degree equations, beyond just following some algebra? Something akin to completing the square
With a quadratic equation you can try to find some unique shift that would make the roots symmetrical (say, as opposites, or perhaps as complex conjugates), and then the equation is turned into a linear equation. How is this to be done for a third degree?
Dont just post the formula, which is over 500 years old, not the point

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:56:21 UTC No. 16244339

>>16242291
0+1=1, 1+1=2, 2-1=1, and 1-1=0. All of mathematics can literally be reduced to these four equations.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:17:27 UTC No. 16244756

>>16242291
2+2=4

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:30:09 UTC No. 16244778

>>16243080
3blue1nigger has a cool video about how this crazy looking one got derived

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:43:22 UTC No. 16244801

>>16243736
good video

Oldfag at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 00:00:45 UTC No. 16244823

>>16244801
Mouf, now

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:31:19 UTC No. 16245438

>>16242291
as a chemist

n [mol] = m [g] / MM [g/mol]