🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 17:16:37 UTC No. 16453749
They did it again and not just once, but 9 more times.
https://www.livescience.com/physics
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 17:26:11 UTC No. 16453763
>>16453749
inb4 /sci/ gets really mad
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 17:32:02 UTC No. 16453768
>>16453749
cool
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 19:03:15 UTC No. 16453879
Two BLACK sisters >>>>>> all of sci
How does that make you feel scitards?
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 19:05:56 UTC No. 16453885
>>16453749
>discovered
Did they actually discover it by opening a textbook? that's admirable dedication to academics for blacks.
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 23:56:45 UTC No. 16454179
Euclidian geometry is just a social construct, it doesn't exist in any real form anywhere in this universe.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:03:12 UTC No. 16454192
>had the student been any other race than black neither their names nor faces would have been shown
>everytime some kind of freakish intellectual feat is committed by anyone of black skin, media include their names and face just to make sure you got who did it, just in case ya know
>no other race has this benefit
>meanwhile European media actively hide the names and faces of crimes perpetuators making everything as vague as possible unless the perpetuator is white. Based on this alone you can easily tell which crimes are committed by poc in European news and which arent
Off topic but fuck race fetishists media and everything they have to offer
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 02:27:38 UTC No. 16454332
>>16454192
I suspect not too many people would have guessed that someone name Ne'Kiya was any other race.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 02:37:40 UTC No. 16454346
>>16453749
Why is this put in with articles about negative time and black holes? Seems like you need to find a new website m8
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 06:15:50 UTC No. 16454509
>>16454192
>no other race has this benefit
Are you new? There's literally a thread every couple of months that shit posts about the latest 10yr old with an "IQ higher than Einstein" and is a new entry of Mensa.
Like seriously fucking Google that shit.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:09:49 UTC No. 16454567
>>16453749
It would almost appear that some people on this thread do not feel that Black students are academic stars.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:24:14 UTC No. 16454577
Westerners could just open up a few old scrolls and find the solutions to hundreds of problems that they attribute to some Ancient Greek mathematician.Its not even hard. Eurocentric academia often refuses to correct the record, saying it would be too hard to correctly attribute anything to the non-Greeks as all the literature refers to it by its Greek name, perpetuating the false idea that Greeks were anything but major plagiarisers. We find evidence of many philosophers just being a bootleg Buddha thanks to finding some wooden panel up in the Himalayas, but God forbid that we recognise this and expand our knowledge.
What is really infuriating though is that these ancient texts also contain solutions to other problems too, but because no one is allowed to go beyond the Greeks you have fuckwits going on about how the Egyptians couldn't've made the pyramids or some accurately carved stone and how it had to be aliens.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:02:38 UTC No. 16454929
up until now I thought the pythagorean theorem was just a conspiracy theory, but now I'm convinced it is real
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:10:23 UTC No. 16454936
>>16454929
To be fair it doesn't help the pythagorean theorem was supported by some mystical druid cult.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 18:38:29 UTC No. 16455051
>Mathematicians had long thought that using trigonometry to prove the theorem was unworkable, given that the fundamental formulas for trigonometry are based on the assumption that the theorem is true.
someone explain this to me like i'm retarded
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 19:24:19 UTC No. 16455114
>>16455051
The authors of that article forgot that you can define sin and cos without Pythagoras and now think hecking epically these two pupils used sin and cos to prove it's real OMG IMPOSSIBLE
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 19:29:23 UTC No. 16455120
>>16454509
>10yr old with an "IQ higher than Einstein" and is a new entry of Mensa.
and have you not noticed that it's always either a girl or a Person of Color? nta but that post still applies, these dubious stories are pushed solely to convince people that, despite the evidence presented by all of human history, "demographics of color" are chock full of hidden turbo geniuses
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 19:39:39 UTC No. 16455134
This is their article btw:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ful
and I'm confused. Perhaps I'm understanding this incorrectly.
They're saying there's a distinction between cyclotropic and trigonometric definitions of sin and cos, because trigonometry uses triangles and triangles always have positively measured lines. But that's not true, I can draw a triangle in the complex plane and yes, the length of each line is still a positive real number, but the extent of a line can be negative or even imaginary. That way, both definitions are equivalent and their reasoning becomes circular again.
Where am I thinking wrong?
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 19:52:03 UTC No. 16455147
>>16455120
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/meet
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/am
https://worcesterobserver.co.uk/new
Tell us the race and sex of the kids in the above links anon.
>b..but they're from the UK! I..it doesn't count.
They I raise you Jacob Barnett if you want one from the US.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 20:43:34 UTC No. 16455201
>>16455114
sine, cosine and tangent are just social constructs, if nearly all children weren't brainwashed with cartesian coordinates and instead taught noneuclidian geometry then there would be no popular notion of sine, cosine and tangent
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 20:46:33 UTC No. 16455206
>>16455201
>non-Euclidean geometry
woke trash. You can clearly see that parallel lines never meet.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 21:21:38 UTC No. 16455267
>>16454192
Blacks HAVE a lower average IQ, and doing something of note being black DOES make it more amazing than if a rich kike does it, whether you like it or not
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:37:25 UTC No. 16455430
>>16455051
easy. it's incorrect.
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 02:22:06 UTC No. 16455497
>>16455430
/thread
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 18:09:35 UTC No. 16456062
>>16455147
Might wanna check this one while you're at it
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-engl
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 18:26:10 UTC No. 16456085
why did they feel the need to prove a theorem more than once?
whats the use in doing that?
seems like a total waste of time unless they thought there was something wrong with their first proof
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 03:38:35 UTC No. 16456630
>>16454567
Kinda like when fewer short kids are in the class, the classes average height goes up too ;) It's all just genetics at the end of the day. It's actually quite cruel to convince them otherwise, like lying to an emu and telling it that if can fly one day, "if it just tries hard enough".
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 01:21:02 UTC No. 16457626
>>16453749
Why do they keep doing this? Why do normies keep being so fucking amazed by it?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 10:46:27 UTC No. 16457994
>>16455134
>>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/f
Holy shit this post-modern garbage is infuriating. How the hell is this even published. I used to read AMM regularly.
>1. INTRODUCTION.
>Students may not realize that two competing versions of trigonometry have been stamped onto the same terminology
They're not 'competing', they're equivalent.
>But only one of these methods is actually trigonometric
Wrong.
>We believe the most sensible way to avoid this confusion is to give the procedures distinct name
You can't just redefine words that have meant something for centuries, even if you weren't fucking high schoolers.
>2. WHAT IS A TRIGONOMETRIC PROOF?
>defining sine or cosine by measuring a right triangle works only for an acute angle, and all other angles—those that measure either 0◦ or less, or 90◦ or more—require an entirely different method.
>trigonometry cannot compute the cosine of a right angle, whereas cyclotopic measurement tells us that cos(90â—¦) = 0
Genuinely retarded. Sin and Cos still work perfectly well when one of the legs has length zero.
>only the first method can reasonably be called trigonometric. The second method might more appropriately be called cyclotopic
"Cyclotopic" isn't a thing and you're not going to make it a thing.
>Many people believe that all trigonometric proofs of Pythagoras’s theorem are circular; see for example [1]
>[1] Loomis E. The Pythagorean proposition.
That is the ONLY book that has ever claimed that and the author was a teacher and administrator, not a real mathematician.
>using trigonometric terminology here adds nothing—in fact it only complicates a simpler view of the same exact approach—so we would say this proof employs similar triangles rather than trigonometry.
Any "trigonometric" proof can be rewritten in pure geometry and all the basic trig theorems were in Euclid, long before "sine" and "cosine" were things.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 10:47:28 UTC No. 16457997
>In truth, we have no idea how to draw a clear line between “trigonometric” proofs of Pythagoras’s theorem and non-trigonometric proofs.
Yeah no fucking shit you don't. Why the hell are you writing an article about it then?
>3. PRELIMINARIES.
I.e. stuff we didn't prove but are going to say we can use because reasons.
>A. The Angle Addition Formulas.
Oh look this just happens to crap out formulas that look almost like the thing you're trying to prove
>C. The isosceles right triangle.
Basically the "nooooo you can't use 0 degree angles because I say so!!" thing again.
>A. The first proof.
Other than using 18th century A.D. tools to solve a 5th century B.C. problem it can be simplified to use no trigonometry (other than as shorthand that can be replaced with an argument about similar triangles):
Area of [math]ABB' = ab = \frac{c^2 \sin 2 \alpha}{2} = \frac{c^2}{2}\frac{|B'D|}{|AD|} = \frac{c^2}{2}\frac{2ab}{a^2+b^2}[/m
>B. The second proof.
>C. The third proof.
>D. The fourth proof.
>E. The fifth proof.
You drew some random configurations of triangles with angles chosen so the trig shit would all be cancelable and juggled things until a^2+b^2=c^2 dropped out, as it must.
>5. OUR METHOD.
>we restricted our creation of new triangles to the ones whose angles are integral sums and/or differences of ABC’s three angles
Like I said.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 10:51:09 UTC No. 16458003
tldr yes I mad
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:11:26 UTC No. 16458059
>>16454192
Blacks are literally retarded, so when they do anything besides consuming what jews tell them to, it's amazing.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:31:50 UTC No. 16458074
>>16453749
Oh boy that is great, just one lil' question: why do they never specify it's "black" teens that came up with it? Why do they only want to communicate that info in a non-explicit way via showing a picture?
Would it be too "un-PC" to act as if that is a special achievement of some sort? I wonder why that is
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:54:08 UTC No. 16458769
>>16457994
>>16457997
"Cyclotopic isn't a thing and you're not going to make it a thing"
Fair enough if you don't like neologisms, but new mathematical terms get coined all the time when they're useful. The real question is whether it serves a meaningful purpose in the paper.
Re: Loomis being "the ONLY book"
This is just factually incorrect. The circularity concern in trigonometric proofs of the Pythagorean theorem has been discussed in multiple mathematical works
Also, dismissing Loomis for being "not a real mathematician" is pretty weak. Euler started as a medical student, Ramanujan was self-taught. Maybe judge the math on its merits?
"Any 'trigonometric' proof can be rewritten in pure geometry"
You're absolutely right! But this is kind of like saying "why use calculus when you can do everything with limits?" Different frameworks can provide different insights
Yes, these concepts existed in Euclid before formal trig. But modern notation exists for a reason - it often makes things clearer and more manageable
"PRELIMINARIES. I.e. stuff we didn't prove but are going to say we can use because reasons"
Come on, that's how math works. We build on established results. Should every paper re-prove the basics of arithmetic?
The angle addition formulas weren't cherry-picked - they're fundamental to the topic at hand
"You drew some random configurations of triangles with angles chosen so the trig shit would all be cancelable"
That's... kind of how proofs work? You choose configurations that lead to useful results
It's like saying Newton just "picked" the right way to factor his equations. Well, yeah - that's the skill
Re: the restricted angles critique
Having a methodical approach to angle selection isn't a flaw - it's good mathematical practice
If it bothers you that they chose angles that work, I'm curious what you think a "legitimate" proof would look like
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:00:20 UTC No. 16458778
>>16458005
this "critique" about mismatched parentheses sizes is honestly just petty nitpicking. These are minor typesetting issues that show up in plenty of math papers and usually get fixed in final editing. The math itself is completely solid and readable - focusing on tiny formatting details instead of engaging with the actual mathematical content says way more about the critic's intentions than any problems with the paper. It's like complaining about someone's handwriting while ignoring their groundbreaking proof - maybe there's a cosmetic issue, but that's so not the point here.
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 00:51:55 UTC No. 16459115
>>16458769
>The real question is whether it serves a meaningful purpose in the paper.
The only purpose I can see is to make the paper twice as long and to give an excuse why they can't use the law of cosines (which I assume depends on pythag anyway)
>Re: Loomis being "the ONLY book"
>This is just factually incorrect.
I haven't seen any other citation for this claim in this whole saga other than direct and indirect citations of The Pythagorean Principle.
>Euler started as a medical student, Ramanujan was self-taught.
And then they became real mathematicians. Loomis had his PhD in metaphysics and was a high school math teacher.
>Maybe judge the math on its merits?
<--- Sure. Here's the original claim. Weak justification that's immediately disproven by the fact that all of basic trigonometry predates Descartes.
>"Any 'trigonometric' proof can be rewritten in pure geometry"
>You're absolutely right! But...
They're trying to draw a distinction between "trigonometric" and "non-trigonometric" proofs and failing miserably, because on a real level the difference doesn't even exist.
>I'm curious what you think a "legitimate" proof would look like
I'm not saying it's illegitimate, I'm saying they had one good idea and claimed that it led to ten different proofs because they applied the idea slightly differently each time.
>>16458778
>petty nitpicking
Yes. Doesn't change that they should fix their shit, and this does seem to be the "final" version.
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 01:03:30 UTC No. 16459124
>>16456630
If we just remove the 'parasitic greedy' White farmers, the Black Africans will become rich!
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 01:50:52 UTC No. 16459167
>>16453885
This is what I bet happened. They found a book with some derivations and spent time figuring them out, just to present them as their own.
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 07:23:06 UTC No. 16459391
>>16454179
It exist in the mind, you materialist idiot
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 07:24:11 UTC No. 16459393
>>16454929
>>16454936
Brainlets.
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 07:49:35 UTC No. 16459411
>>16456630
I do not understand online and offline racists and eugenicists. Why don't they kill themselves for not being MENSA or whatever?
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 08:49:28 UTC No. 16459445
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 09:36:30 UTC No. 16459484
>>16457994
>>16457997
>>16453749
Reminds me of this. Never trust what you see in the media without checking the source.
https://media.gab.com/system/media_
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 13:19:09 UTC No. 16459608
>>16459411
The opposite happens
I have the big IQ but will never have kids because I would never want them to suffer
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 20:44:29 UTC No. 16460013
>>16459608
you don't have a big IQ, thats just an egotistical fantasy of yours
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:20:31 UTC No. 16460035
>>16459115
>The only purpose I can see is to make the paper twice as long and to give an excuse why they can't use the law of cosines
Look, inventing new terms isn't automatically bad - it often helps clarify patterns we haven't named before. Also, basic logic you can't use law of cosines to prove Pythagoras when it's derived FROM Pythagoras. That's exactly the circular reasoning Loomis is warning about.
>I haven't seen any other citation for this claim in this whole saga other than direct and indirect citations of The Pythagorean Principle
Have you actually checked the broader mathematical literature? There's a whole world of math pedagogy writing out there. Show me where others explicitly disagree with this concern. And if you actually read the Loomis page you'll see he references Versluys's book with 96 proofs and builds a complete argument about circular reasoning. This isn't some random claim - it's a structured argument about proof theory.
>Loomis had his PhD in metaphysics and was a high school math teacher
Cool story, but read his actual argument. He's breaking down fundamental issues in mathematical proof construction. The logic either works or it doesn't - his degree is irrelevant.
>Weak justification that's immediately disproven by the fact that all of basic trigonometry predates Descartes
You're accidentally proving Loomis's point. Basic trig is built on Pythagorean foundations - that's exactly why using it to prove Pythagoras creates circular reasoning.
>They're trying to draw a distinction between "trigonometric" and "non-trigonometric" proofs and failing miserably
Loomis is making a specific point about circular reasoning in proof construction. It's not about different proof styles - it's about logical dependency.
>I'm not saying it's illegitimate, I'm saying they had one good idea and claimed that it led to ten different proofs
Maybe they're variations, but that's missing the bigger point about proof methodology that Loomis lays out.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 03:01:35 UTC No. 16460464
>>16460035
Yes, everyone's well aware what circular reasoning is but even a high school math teacher should know that trigonometry doesn't depend on the pythagorean theorem. Angle addition formulas can be proven with simple diagrams, as they do in this article, sin^2+cos^2=1 follows immediately from the cosine addition formula, and even the law of cosines doesn't depend on the pythagorean theorem. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_
>builds a complete argument about circular reasoning
Lol no. He says that circular reasoning is bad (obvious) then simply asserts (wrongly) that any proof using trigonometry or analytic geometry must be circular because it all depends on pythag (wrong).
Oh, and he also fucking misspells "trigonometry".
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 03:40:39 UTC No. 16460489
>>16460464
>sin^2+cos^2=1 follows immediately from the cosine addition formula
In fact I'm now thinking that the actual reason they're so stubborn about not using negative angles and pulled this "cyclotopic" thing out of their ass is because proving the pythagorean theorem from normal trigonometry is incredibly trivial but admitting that would blow up their entire claim to fame.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 04:14:01 UTC No. 16460507
>>16460489
proving the pythagorean theorem using trigonometry is just saying "the pythagorean theorem is true because the pythagorean theorem is true" its basic circular reasoning
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 04:20:32 UTC No. 16460516
>>16460507
It's not "circular reasoning", it's a trivial corollary.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 05:04:03 UTC No. 16460569
>>16453749
They're not geniuses from what I understand but I'm very happy for them, it's silly to be mad over this. It's neat regardless of race and the consequent biases.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 05:24:41 UTC No. 16460582
>>16460569
>it's silly to be mad over this.
Obviously it is anon, but you need to remember there are a lot buttmad mathfags who dropped +$50k and wasted 4-8 years of their life in higher institutions only to get clowned by a couple of high school girls who everyone would pan as future welfare queens.
They did the equivalent of Math PhD thesis for a school project. These girls could literally coast the rest of their academic careers/lives on just working on novel analysis involving the proofs they made and get in the history books.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 05:27:30 UTC No. 16460583
>>16460569
https://maa.org/wp-content/uploads/
Every high schooler on this list had to solve much more difficult problems than this but the media doesn't give a shit because they're all white and asian.
>>16460582
>the equivalent of Math PhD thesis
LOL
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 05:27:48 UTC No. 16460584
>>16460569
>it's silly to be mad over this.
Obviously it is anon, but you need to remember there are a lot buttmad mathfags who dropped +$50k and wasted 4-8 years of their life in higher institutions only to get clowned by a couple of high school girls who everyone would have panned as future welfare queens.
They did the equivalent of Math PhD thesis for a school project. These girls could literally coast the rest of their academic careers/lives on just working on novel analysis involving the proofs they made and get in the history books.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 05:31:51 UTC No. 16460588
>>16460583
>Every high schooler on this list had to solve much more difficult problems than this
So why didn't they anon? If this was so easy why didn't another highschooler do it earlier?
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 05:37:21 UTC No. 16460591
>>16460588
Because "Come up with the five hundredth known proof of a basic geometry fact" isn't on any serious math student's radar.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 05:44:45 UTC No. 16460596
>>16460591
I guess r.i.p. to all the math students who wasted their time working on proofs #99-499. Since apparently they weren't serious students after all.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 05:52:40 UTC No. 16460598
>>16460596
Wasting your time on useless things isn't a sign of a good student. By my count 23 of the 250+ proofs in Loomis' book are his own, which could be part of the reason why he never actually accomplished anything meaningful.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 06:44:34 UTC No. 16460619
>>16453749
can someone give me a tl;dr as to whether they actually invented any novel proofs or techniques
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 07:11:13 UTC No. 16460635
>>16460619
They came up with the billionth known solution to a 9th grade geometry problem and got famous because journalists are retards who know nothing about math but everything about race baiting. The only novelty is that they used tools which traditionally aren't used for problems like this because they're more advanced and are typically learned much later, even though technically there's no reason they couldn't be. The media latched on to a 100 year old quote from a high school teacher who didn't know what he was talking about to pretend that they'd done something impossible.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 02:14:30 UTC No. 16461666
damn, for all these years I was positive the pythagorean theorem was wrong.
I stand corrected, thanks for finally setting me straight negro women
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 14:27:13 UTC No. 16462125
>>16453749
Shieeeeet
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 04:08:30 UTC No. 16463144
ok, but they're still both fat and ugly
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:33:47 UTC No. 16463505
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:09:31 UTC No. 16463859
>>16453749
>>16455134
>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/fu
>3 Proving 𝑎^2+b^2=c^2 is not the same as proving (sin𝛼)^2+(cos𝛼)^2=1
wat.
how is it not? this is direct from the fucking definitions
if you have
[eqn]sin𝛼 = a/c[/eqn] and [eqn]cos𝛼 = b/c[/eqn]
then [eqn]a = c*sin𝛼[/eqn] and [eqn]b = c*cos𝛼[/eqn]
then
[eqn]a^2 + b^2 = (c*sin𝛼)^2 +(c*cos𝛼)^2 = c^2*sin^2𝛼 +c^2*cos^2𝛼 = c^2*(sin^2𝛼 +cos^2𝛼) = c^2[/eqn]
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:13:43 UTC No. 16463864
>>16463859
sin and cos have no closed form
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:31:15 UTC No. 16463888
>>16463859
>>16463864
I have no clue what that means, I barely remember half of the formulas that apply to trig and I'm too lazy to read anything so I guess I better don't say anything else
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:03:29 UTC No. 16463942
>>16463859
I agree, but that's a circular proof. The statement sin^2+cos^2=1 is synonymous with a^2+b^2=c^2
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:08:18 UTC No. 16463953
>>16463859
>>16463942
Nevermind, just read it in context. Yeah, that's a retarded statement. The signs from sine and cosine vanish since they are squared.