Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:27:47 UTC No. 16459922

>>16459893
You can define a function on the real line that is inifnity at 0 and 0 everywhere else. However, you need to provide a new theory of integral that gives its integral as 1 on its domain. (lebesgue and riemann integrals both give 0 as the result)
You're just a stupid dishonest lying physicists though so obviously you don't care about that and just want to go ahead making stupid false statements.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:30:07 UTC No. 16459926

>>16459893
Honestly to be at such a point that you have to ask such a stupid elementary question you need to have completely forgotten all your morals and standards of rigor. You have no idea either what is a function or a distribution. You are an evil dishonest person and you should feel bad about it.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:31:29 UTC No. 16459929

>>16459922
>You're just a stupid dishonest lying physicists though so obviously you don't care about that and just want to go ahead making stupid false statements.
what's the problem? did yout gf cheated on you with a physicist?

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:32:52 UTC No. 16459933

>>16459929
My gf knows not to get involved with physicists.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:46:17 UTC No. 16459955

>>16459926
for the average physicscel brainlet, you can just treat it as a function for the purposes of spamming integration by parts
let mathchads worry about the formalism of it

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:46:39 UTC No. 16459956

>>16459922
You don't need that shit. Just use your intuition like Dirac

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 20:09:29 UTC No. 16459977

>>16459955
>worry about the formalism of it
You are a genuine idiot. It's not worrying about the formalism, it's simply understanding what the fuck you are talking about. Retarded physicists love to conflate formalism with knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 20:30:52 UTC No. 16460000

>le distribution
It is just the limit of the integral

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 20:36:37 UTC No. 16460004

>>16459893
>mathematicians keep getting mad at me for using the dira function as a function
it is a function in the classic sense of a function
diract function is the limit of the normal distribution for limit of its variance -> 0

mathematicians are retards

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 20:53:44 UTC No. 16460018

>>16460004
Retard.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:09:21 UTC No. 16460028

>>16460018
haha yeah the people who invented this and knew nothing about your gay formalism are "retards"

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:39:54 UTC No. 16460053

>>16460018
embarassing.
consider deleting your comment.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:41:19 UTC No. 16460055

>>16459893
>but what's the difference?
that dirac delta technically has to occur in an integral to be well defined.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:42:39 UTC No. 16460057

>>16460055
>dirac delta technically has to occur in an integral to be well defined
retard alert!

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:47:22 UTC No. 16460062

>>16459977
>physicists love to conflate formalism with knowing what the fuck you're talking about
physicists are pretty bad at formalism
t. Physics BA and EE PhD

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:54:07 UTC No. 16460071

>>16459955
>let mathchads worry about the formalism of it
lmao
>stumbles and flops on the ground pissing itself over the most trivial of undergrad math questions
>mathchads
intellectual pisslows like xirself should really avoid using the word "chad", mr permavirgin!

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 23:13:21 UTC No. 16460203

>it's not a function, it's a LE DISTRIBUTION

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 08:57:06 UTC No. 16460690

>>16459893
It's another instance of mathematicians mistaking their inability of properly doing their job (formalizing intuitive notions) with what should be taken as mathematically correct, like with infinitesimals and treating dy/dx as a fraction.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:07:24 UTC No. 16460726

>>16459977
Formalism has nothing to do with knowingwhat you're talking about. Look at mathematicians who ended up inventing the system of 'real numbers' and came up with all sorts of absurdities like non-measurable sets (which conveniently have to be defined using non-constructive methods lol) and dumbfuck constructions like the banach tarski, which should really be considered a reductio ad absurdum of the "real numbers".

bodhi at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:24:33 UTC No. 16460734

>>16460071
HEY. I'm a permavirgin bro lay off me

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:27:19 UTC No. 16460737

>>16460062
Physicists are bad at everything because they are very dishonest people and don't know what they're talking about most of the time.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:28:43 UTC No. 16460740

>>16460737
Says the retard using a device designed by physicists

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:30:05 UTC No. 16460742

>>16460690
It's not the mathematicians' job to interpret schizobabble.
>>16460726
>Formalism has nothing to do with knowingwhat you're talking about
That was my point exactly.
Physicists problem is not the lack of formalist, but lack of knowing what the fuck they are talking about.
>Look at mathematicians who ended up inventing the system of 'real numbers' and came up with all sorts of absurdities like non-measurable sets (which conveniently have to be defined using non-constructive methods lol) and dumbfuck constructions like the banach tarski, which should really be considered a reductio ad absurdum of the "real numbers".
Ok you're just dumb.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:32:04 UTC No. 16460744

>>16460740
Computer engineers designed my computer, not physicists. Even if physicists accidentally stumbled upon something useful one day that doesn't imply they know what they're talking about. They routinely admit and demonstrate that they don't know what they're talking about. Just ask them what the fuck they mean about the most basic statements they say and watch them stumble over their words struggling to come up with anything coherent.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:32:11 UTC No. 16460745

>>16460742
>Ok you're just dumb.
Nice refutation, chimp

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:33:05 UTC No. 16460747

>>16460745
No point in trying to refute non sequitur nonsense. Pearls before swine.

bodhi at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:35:10 UTC No. 16460749

>>16460747
Don't display pork underneath swine.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:35:27 UTC No. 16460750

>>16460744
>Computer engineers designed my computer, not physicists.
Lol, what a retard

>>16460747
You must feel pretty mad knowing that a physicist can easily debunk your "real number" fantasies with minimum effort

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:39:41 UTC No. 16460754

>>16460750
The fact that your chimp brain is confused by real numbers doesn't constitute a debunk.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:41:53 UTC No. 16460757

>>16460754
Npc tier response

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:43:21 UTC No. 16460759

>>16460726
>dumbfuck constructions like the banach tarski, which should really be considered a reductio ad absurdum of the "real numbers".
>I never bothered to understand the proof of banach tarski
>therefore real numbers don't real
Do you want a Fields medal?

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:45:10 UTC No. 16460761

>>16460759
Why would I want a medal meant for retards (mathematicians)?

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:45:21 UTC No. 16460762

>>16460742
>It's not the mathematicians' job to interpret schizobabble.
It's not their job to produce it, either, yet it's all they do.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:48:34 UTC No. 16460764

>>16460761
The absolute cope and seethe LMAO. Physicists don't even have the concept of a proof. The closest thing they have is called a "derivation" which means shuffling random symbols around like a monkey without understanding what they mean to get the desired formula.
>>16460762
Everything mathematicians produce is water tight and actual knowledge. They can explain every single detail of what they're talking about because mathematicians are not dishonest people like physicists.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:52:39 UTC No. 16460773

>>16460764
>Physicists don't even have the concept of a proof.
It's because we have something better: evidence.
>The closest thing they have is called a "derivation" which means shuffling random symbols around like a monkey without understanding what they mean to get the desired formula.
That's what you dumbfuck mathematicians do lol

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:57:27 UTC No. 16460777

>>16460773
>It's because we have something better: evidence.
Evidence + nonsense = nonsense

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 11:02:26 UTC No. 16460783

>>16460777
Now prove that within zfc

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 11:03:49 UTC No. 16460784

>>16460783
I know physicists find it hard to distinguish actual math from statements just look like math, but that wasn't actually a mathematical statement.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 11:27:34 UTC No. 16460802

>>16460764
>actual knowledge is shuffling around preexisting concepts while piling up useless abstractions for no conceptual gain

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 11:49:36 UTC No. 16460815

>>16460764
Lmao, what? You've got a very idealistic understanding of what mathematics actually is. I'm certainly no fan of physicists, but mathematicians are very often unable to see the forest for the trees. All of that "rigor" very often leads to a complete disconnection between the reality the mathematics was often developed to model, and the mathematics itself.

If you want an easy example of this, take a look at how mathematicians approach control theory. It's all about proofs of controllability or path uniqueness and never bothers to actually check whether their answers make sense.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 17:28:40 UTC No. 16461133

>>16460802
You don't know any math if you think that's what math is like.
>>16460815
>but mathematicians are very often unable to see the forest for the trees. All of that "rigor" very often leads to a complete disconnection between the reality the mathematics was often developed to model, and the mathematics itself.
It's called isolation of concerns and it is the basis of intelligent thinking. Being able to think about one topic ignoring concerns of how it would fit into other topics or things you're interested in, for its own consistency.
>complete disconnection between the reality the mathematics was often developed to model, and the mathematics itself
That's to be expected. The map is not the territory. But often the map itself is worth studying, even those aspects of the map that do not have corresponding properties in the territory.
>If you want an easy example of this, take a look at how mathematicians approach control theory. It's all about proofs of controllability or path uniqueness and never bothers to actually check whether their answers make sense.
I have never studied control theory. If you have any particular theorem that you have an issue with I could look into it.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 07:39:48 UTC No. 16461883

>>16461133
>You don't know any math if you think that's what math is like.
Stop crying

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:28:02 UTC No. 16463984

>>16459929
>did yout gf cheated on you
Learn to write, dalit benchod