|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #9896 on SubscribersLevel 194 Comments: Anon Annihilator
OfflineSend mail to jokesrfunny Block jokesrfunny Invite jokesrfunny to be your friend flag avatar
- Views: 87682Multiple Choice
4110 166 Total: +3944
- Views: 19526Russia Vs. USA
417 72 Total: +345
- Views: 1338U mad Darwin?
19 6 Total: +13
- Views: 392Oh God Why
14 2 Total: +12
- Views: 1209Xzibit Exhibit
11 2 Total: +9
- Views: 529This babe ;)
14 5 Total: +9
- Views: 25937/b/
860 59 Total: +801
- Views: 11349Where are you Jim?
186 37 Total: +149
- Views: 807Racist power activate
17 1 Total: +16
- Views: 1069Having a rough go
11 0 Total: +11
- Views: 664What a beautiful lady.
11 0 Total: +11
- Views: 526Cosby Pokeman
10 1 Total: +9
latest user's comments
|#36 - Finally a mathematics post, sadly most of the comments are abo…||06/01/2012 on Minute Physics||+1|
|#35 - "True infinity" is meaningless. We are referring… [+] (1 new reply)||06/01/2012 on Minute Physics||0|
|#34 - No, watch this: If you take every integer, and take t… [+] (1 new reply)||06/01/2012 on Minute Physics||0|
#46 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/01/2012) [-]
You've also stuck to the quotient group, or the group of fractions in that proof. Interestingly, it is also impossible to map the fractions to the real numbers (which also contain all the irrational numbers). This is cool because it means that there are more real numbers from 0 to 1 than there are fractions from 0 to 1, which is more than the number of integers.
N < Q < R
|#32 - "There is more real numbers than there is real numbers&qu… [+] (3 new replies)||06/01/2012 on Minute Physics||0|
#37 - suddenfury (06/01/2012) [-]
sorry i meant to say that you can prove there is more whole numbers than there is whole numbers. if you link every whole number to another whole number (instead of a decimal number between 0 and 1) you can still do the diagonal trick and construct an unlinked number.
Furthermore you can turn the whole proof around an prove there is more whole numbers than decimal numbers between 0 and 1.
okay, isn't there some kind of infinite series that always converges to some sort of function.
like Fourier series, aren't they "one to one" with periodic functions. if you write the funtions on the left and their Fourier series on the right you can construct a series that does not correspond to a periodic function.
#42 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/01/2012) [-]
The reason it works with the numbers between 0 and 1 is because there are infinite digits after the decimal point. Integers always have a finite number of digits, and therefore this trick doesn't work on them. Therefore there are always more real numbers in any continuous interval than there are integers.
You're definitely misunderstanding the concept of that proof. Not sure what you're trying to say about power series, so I can't help with that.
#98 - suddenfury (06/02/2012) [-]
all integers can have an infinite number of digits, if you add zeroes to the left. they're just as infinite as decimal numbers. you can pivot a decimal number around its decimal point and get an integer. in some cases the integers value is unbounded, like if you pivot 1/3
about infinite series its hard to explain with no way to visualize, so ill give it a rest.
|#9 - Wait, he said hydrogen at the beginning? No way he inhaled hyd… [+] (2 new replies)||06/01/2012 on Sulfur Hexafluoride||-28|
|#13 - Most people don't have the aptitude to pursue studies in scien… [+] (1 new reply)||06/01/2012 on good question||+3|
#18 - benjaminbutton (06/01/2012) [-]
Well, to be fair not everyone is interested in the nitty gritty that science pursues. I love the idea behind some sciences but would never study all of them in depth because it doesn't interest me. I rather like the social sciences myself, specifically psychology. So yes, not everyone has the aptitude to pursue science, but may have the aptitude to pursue something else such as construction, writing or painting. So I hope in your post you aren't bashing others interest, but I feel while many of the people may have failed the class at your school, I think I only got away with an 80 in college physics myself, the may have been required to take that class for the school or exploring possible interests, like most kids do in college. So from a psychology major be a little more accepting, as some kids who may have had to take the course for a core class, have problems wrapping their head around the idea of physics. Everyone has their strengths, so don't put yourself on a high throne please, but I also understand your frustration.
|#432 - You can't "cure" cancer, you can treat it however, a…||06/01/2012 on I just thought of this.||0|
|#9 - Mormon Problems||05/31/2012 on WELCOME TO DOCTOR WHO ENJOY...||+8|
|#17 - You belong in a garbage can.||05/29/2012 on Arrested motherfucker||+6|
|#102 - Don't you have anything better to do then browse multiple webs… [+] (1 new reply)||05/29/2012 on Genius||0|
Join Subscribe 4chan