Markov chains
What else?
>>7688732
>Because Gravity is useless
>>7688732
Topology
Infinite series is surprisingly useless. Maclaurin series in not needed in a world with calculators
Anything after calculus.
>>7688740
>Because heat relativities have always been the same
>>7688745
>Because di-pole 2d integrals are still irrelevant in formatting pre-space
Quadratic Equations
Never once did I need to solve one of them while shopping.
>>7688732
How are Markov chains useless? Or is this an epic maymay?
addition
Imaginary numbers.
Negative numbers.
Numbers over a hundred.
Fractions lower than 1/8
Zero
Prime numbers
If it isn't found in nature it's useless.
>>7688761
>Because determining your proper course of browsing the televisions and then going between them to check prices vs quality has never occurred to organize itself to you
>you don't know Quadratic Formulas
>>7688771
>2015
>still thinking if it's known it hasn't occurred
>still thinking that nature is just plants and pregnancy
>>7688763
>i don't see a use for it therefore it has no use!
OP is most likely taking year 1 linear algebra and hasn't been exposed to probability and statistics.
>>7688788
>still thinking markov chains arn't the basis of the reals
>thinking this isn't taught in x countries linear algebra course
>this century blows man
>>7688771
all of the things you named are found in nature
>>7688788
I haven't done limits in a long time but if I remember correctly the right limit is infinite and left is minus infinite so there is no limit there for the answer for the first one is wrong
am I right or do I need to review?
>>7688824
Show me a photograph of minus 3 flowers
But anon, the universe is an instance of the AIXI algorithm running on an infinite systolic array of markov chains.
AIXI seeks to maximize future reward, and defines that reward in terms of simplicity - i.e fewer bits. A systolic array is homogenous - you just need many examples of the same pattern. Since all particles relate to one another via the four forces, a markov chain can be used to model the units in the systolic array.
Entropy can be modeled as, say, out of 100 bits, a few bits constantly being lost. This happens because both bits enter the same state, and when pinged flip together into the same new state - 2 bits, lets say, get stuck together, and now function as only 1 bit.
Heat is literally motion of particles - the further they orbit away from the center of mass, the hotter they are. They oscillate back and forth, and in doing so change from one state to another. As two particles in a markov chain interact, they equalize their energies - they eventually begin to oscillate together. Diamagnetic materials are unstable, and hold unstable poles that all go in different directions - iron, on the other hand, is already in a cool, high-entropy state where all the poles are aligned. Heat anything up, however, and the poles disalign.
AIXI wants to maximize entropy - all the poles aligning is simpler than all of them going their own ways. Humans make chilled superconductors - we force matter into a higher entropy state.
I don't see how this is useless - this is the fun stuff you spent all that time preparing to understand.
>>7688831
You're right. They obviously cut corners to fit the joke. But yes you are right.
>>7688780
>any year
>being such a fool
>>7688788
you can't divide by zero, it's not defined, it's not infinity
>>7688872
I'm fully aware of that, please take a joke.
>>7688872
You can divide by zero if you define division by zero
>>7688835
negative numbers are defined such that the sum of a number and its negative is 0
so -3 flowers is just 3 antienergy flowers. not antimatter since matter-antimatter annihilation releases energy and is therefore not 0.
>>7688797
Please explain?
>>7688890
You can divide by zero, but numerator has also be zero.
0^0=1 (Taylor series doesn't work if this isn't true)
0^1*0^-1=1
0/0^1=1
0/0=1
>>7688732
>"markov chains are useless"
>probably uses google's search engine
Theorem: Useless theorems don't exist
The proof goes as follows:
(1) This proof must be useful, since it would answer OPs question (it being "what else?").
(2) If a theorem is useless, all its applications must, by extension, be useless themselves.
Proof: An application of a useless theorem, by (2), would be useless. Since the question is based on a useless theorems existence, this proof must be useless. This is a contradiction of (1). Therefore, no theorem can be useless.
>>7688835
Show me a photograph of your brain.
I just proved your brain doesn't exist. I didn't do it alone though; your shitposts helped a lot.
>>7688930
Please get out
>>7688930
why would you ever write a / b^c over a * b^-c?
>>7688732
Prime numbers
>>7688930
stop it
>>7688775
Failing for epic meem tier Bait
>>7689543
>google's search engine uses markov chains
>this is what mathematicians tell themselves
they could in theory be used, yes, but they're so inefficient that they're not used.
>>7689596
:^)
>>7689892
>Trying to meme a meme that was memeing another meme
Pls help us all.
>>7688740
>Maclaurin series in not needed in a world with calculators
haha
>>7688732
lol pleb fuck
Everything besides inter-universal Teichmüller theory.
>>7688797
>doing math with reals :^)
>>7688835
show me your bank account after purchasing something, show me your velocity in a car in reverse in vector form
>>7688732
approximating areas under curves using Riemann summation when the function is known and continuous over the given interval. seems pretty pointless to me
quaternions
+most of what ramanunujan did
>>7688740
Kek, I don't suppose you know anything about how calculators work?
>>7688732
Are you retarded OP?
>>7688732
Yeah, Monte Carlo methods are useless too, right?
>>7688771
>If it isn't found in nature it's useless.
>numbers over a hundred
Also
>Thinks imaginary numbers can't be found in nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect
>>7689596
Similarly all natural numbers have a distinct interesting property.
The proof goes as follows:
1) Assume that there is a non-empty subset of uninsteresting numbers inside the set of natural numbers.
2) Since this set is a subset of natural numbers it must have a smallest element, let's call it x.
3) "The smallest element of the uninteresting numbers" itself is an interesting property, so x is both interesting and an element of the set of uninteresting numbers which is a contradiction.
So the set of uninteresting numbers is empty.
>>7691499
N J Wildberger pls go
