So what exactly is missing from this picture, apart from the dumb mistake x^n for n=-1?
Be as specific as possible, but it seems to me it's pretty complete.
Also this
>>8076632
>what exactly is missing from this picture
advanced math
>>8076637
>Be specific please
Don't bother otherwise
Also obviously don't go to areas like graph theory
It says that the anti-derivative of x^n is ((x^n-1)/(x+1)) + c.
>>8076670
Shitpost
>>8076636
This one is pretty good though
>>8076636
Finite Harmonic Series
>>8076632
No Fourier transforms
No Fourier series
No legendres
No bessels
The error propagation but could be written much more generally
>>8077023
Yeah a FT is a special case of the LT however the difference in uses and the difficulty to derive and FT from the LT warrants a mention.
>>8077037
Got it. And sorry to keep bugging you but can you think of anything else that's missing?
>>8076632
>>8076632
Isn't the chain rule incorrect, though?
It should be the derivative of f(x) taking g(x) as its variable and then multiplied by the derivative of g(x) with respect to x.
I've usually seen it written as (f(g(x)))' = f'(x)/dg(x) × g'(x)/dx
>>8077098
>>8076640
No abstract algebra whatsoever, no real analysis other than calculus definitions, no logic whatsoever, no inner product spaces, abstract definitions subsituted for common euclidean variants in linear algebra, no complex analysis, no linear transformations, no orthogonal subspaces, no fourier transform, no PDE's, no real statistics definitions (no moments, no pdf's, no moment generating functions), no topology... I could go on and those aren't even advanced topics. As a physics/engineering math reference sheet, sure, this looks great. From a math perspective, it is almost useless
>>8077275
Its a good start. I would definitely love to see more added to this
>>8077293
Yes it certainly is a good start. I would love to see more analysis and algebra added to it
>>8076632
Control engineer fag here. Even for engineering purposes this is utterly useless.
It lacks at least complex analysis, dynamic systems theory, control theory, a lot of discrete math (like graph theory), mathematical programming.
Just to name a few fields that are quite useful in a practical engineering application.
>>8076632
As it is, it seems completely useless - there's nothing on here that you wouldn't already know from simply taking a module on it, these aren't really things that you'd forget.
It's like forgetting the definition of a basis.
>>8076640
What's wrong with graph theory?
>>8077338
The OP picture is just for high school math
>>8078113
It's just a cheat sheet for high school math.
>>8078177
Oh, I didn't think it was since it said undergraduate edition.
Meh, probably needs something about basic Logic like natural deduction.
>>8078249
But it doesn't really belong on this cheat sheet.
Many on /sci/ are autistic, so I'll explain what you should've picked up about this image by looking at it: its contains math that will be useful in many upper-level undergraduate courses. These are things you may forget if you take a year of algebra and don't do any trig, for example. Or you take Complex a year after you last learned the ratio test.
It's not meant to be an entire undergrad education. Certainly you see how that would be far too large.
>>8078177
Why don't you just go post in the IQ circlejerk thread.
>>8078249
I'm not sure if you're OP, but I don't think it's a good idea to pander to multiple audiences.
From a mathematics point of view, this is useless.
From an engineering point of view, I'm not sure since I'm not one so can't say.
It said "MATH" so I assumed that it was for maths.
Can you define the scope of your cheat sheet so we can make suggestions to it properly?
>>8076632
I saved it, it's pretty decent.
