How about a proof thread? No matter if babby math, advanced math, CS theory or logic. Post your proofs here. Ill start.
>>8181015
IF a halt function exists then:
void halting_troll( void (*funfun)(void*) ){
if(halt(funfun, (void*) funfun))
while(1){}
return;
}
would be valid but what is the result of >halt(halting_troll, (void*) halting_troll);
QED
>>8181015
>Look at me, I'm so [eqn]smart[/eqn]! I wrote a proof in [eqn]latex[/eqn]!
>>8181015
If god exists then why does bad things happen
QED
>>8181121
God doesn't give a shit.
>>8181015
>Post your proofs here.
You make it sound like you made that proof, which you didn't. Unless your name is Michael Sipser
If a=b and b=c, a is equal to c.
I like this thread idea OP. I'll contribute with a proof of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (for reals) I just wrote. Pic related.
>>8181121
If my parents love me then why don't they do my homework
QED
>>8181130
Ok, i didn't,.Correction: post anyones proof, or any at all.
>>8181015
Correction: Post anyones proofs, or just proofs at all.
>>8181136
>proposition
>no proof
Are you literally retarded?
>in 2016 the typical /sci/ poster cannot prove that the standard equality is an equivalence relation
Please prove me wrong, it is not that hard anyways.
>>8181015
Every Smooth Manifold admits a Riemannian Metric
Pf:
- Let [math]M[/math] be a smooth manifold.
- Let [math]{\mathcal{A}_M} = {\left\{ {\left( {{U_\alpha },{h_\alpha }} \right)} \right\}_{\alpha \in A}}[/math] be an atlas on [math]M[/math].
- Let [math]{\left\{ {{\tau _\alpha }} \right\}_{\alpha \in A}}[/math] be a partition of unity subordinate to [math]{\left\{ {{U_\alpha }} \right\}_{\alpha \in A}}[/math].
- Let [math]\delta[/math] be the standard euclidean metric.
- Define [math]g \equiv \sum\limits_{\alpha \in A} {{\tau _\alpha } \cdot } {h_\alpha }^*\delta [/math].
[math]\square [/math]
>>8181015
>>8181188
>>8181136
Looks like you can't. Just so you know, transitivity is not a fucking axiom. If you are making new mathematics and you just assume transitivity instead of defining more integral axioms then you'd be shit at math.
Assume that a=b and b=c
a=b implies that a is contained in b, and b=c implies that b is contained in c.
By definition this means that x element of a implies x element of b implies x element of c.
Therefore a is contained in c.
On the other hand, c=b implies c is contained in b and b=a implies b is contained in a.
By definition x element of c implies x element of b implies x element of a.
Therefore c is contained in a.
If c is contained in a and a is contained in c then by definition c=a.
The proof only assumes symmetry of equality and that is an even more trivial proof.
>>8181194
it looks like he just pulled f(x) out of his ass
that's the derivative of a taylor series?
Haha i'm such a sapiosexual guize xD xD
>>8181213
>imblygning thou could not compartmentalise any spoof until the glorious HOL
But to be serious, i think it is better to write a statement.
>>8181226
>it looks like he just pulled f(x) out of his ass
He pulled the whole proof out of his ass, which is why is looks like shit just like every other analytic proof.
I don't really understand the point of this thread. We recite proofs from textbooks and circlejerk over it?
>>8181265
Is there a point in any thread on /sci/?
>>8181267
No, but OP referred to it as an "actual question about a serious topic" and bitched and moaned that someone didn't take his shitpost seriously.
>>8181267
Is there a point to any thread on 4chan?
>>8181121
Doesnt say anywhere god is good
