Jump to content

Chaos

Head Admin
  • Posts

    8411
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    90

Everything posted by Chaos

  1. All of those are canonical! My link links to Brandon himself The only one that is weird is Sel, because Brandon can't seem to make up his mind...
  2. There are some standard demonyms. Rosharans, Scadrians, Nalthians, Threnodites are all canonical (with Threnodite coming from Secret History). Brandon previously on that Q&A has said "Selish" was the demonym for Sel, but in later Q&As he has said "Selian," if I recall correctly. No other planet has known demonyms. Brandon will probably answer that when we get books on those worlds. I think Sharders have asked about a few others and he is hesitant to canonize them yet. I think people from Yolen are Yolish, but don't have an immediate link for that, so I might be imagining that. EDIT: Indeed, on the Coppermind we get the WoB'd demonym at all costs, haha.
  3. Chaos

    Ask Chaos Anything!

    I just hate "games" without a point. If I wanted a brain teaser or game of skill, I'd play an actual game and feel much, much more rewarded. Like who the crap cares otherwise...
  4. I am freaking excited for Rogue One. Main character looks awesome. Did you see her walking and she had the Han Solo-esque blaster on her side? Awesome. Hopefully she will be more than female Han Solo, of course. But I am very excited. I will say that everything looks gorgeous in this. Perhaps more gorgeous than Episode 7. I will always say that in the prequels, that opening of Episode 3 is insane in its beauty. I'm a sucker for space combat. Hopefully there's some good space combat here, in a better movie than Episode 3 (which, ideally, will be a given at this point), and in a movie where ship combat is actually plot relevant. I find that Episode 7's biggest weakness is how irrelevant the Starkiller Base and the fighter sequence at the end was. It just wasn't needed; you want more Rey and Finn in that movie. But this one. I expect some epic space combat, and a butt-kicking female protagonist who isn't a Jedi. I am sold and very excited.
  5. Chaos

    Ask Chaos Anything!

    I've never heard of them. That doesn't sound like my thing. I don't really like puzzles for the sake of puzzles. (Notably, I really dislike something Sudoku.) I cross z's, 7's, and my t's have tails. I didn't originally when I was a college freshman, but I was quickly persuaded. I once did a take home exam that had a lot of Stormlight references, and one of my students did know of it. If they were die-hard Sharder that I actually knew here... Hmmm. If I knew them, we'd need to talk a bit about that. It wouldn't be an issue, though.
  6. Not a worry. Practically speaking you'd Google them anyway. But in this case, the derivation was so specific that it could be generalized, so it was relevant
  7. It stands for Word of Brandon, in other words, it cites a quote of Brandon.
  8. Well I did some quick Googling. As expected, there is not a formula for this. Division makes things very bad. Dunkum, it is a very simple from the double angle identities, which aren't too bad to derive. No calculus required.
  9. Irreparably, cannot be tweaked in that sense. That formula has a very specific derivation that requires a/2.
  10. I just think applying math is much more work than actually doing the theoretical math. That said I do hate certain subjects. Screw you abstract algebra.
  11. Yeah, proofs aren't for everyone, but hopefully there was a class to train you to prove things. It is a technique and is knowable. It amusing, because after doing graduate math classes, I did a probability theory class, and the proofs were so laughably easy compared to the analysis proofs.
  12. It's true. But as it happens, Brandon books tend to draw math/sciency people, and when you put us in random conversation, it just kind of pops out. Frequently when I am drunk I try to teach people quantum mechanics. I'm pretty rusty on that, though, so it goes less well these days. (Uh... don't drink, kids?)
  13. And this is why I switched from physics to math, because the math is easier there The next "Random Stuff" thread should be called "Maybe There Won't Be So Much Math This Time."
  14. I find it much more amusing to show people, very easily, that there are the same amount of numbers in 1,2,3,4,5... as 2,4,6,8,... That always is fun at parties. (I have the best parties.) (Also, 0 to 1 and 0 to 10 have the same amount of numbers.)
  15. I'm going to be honest, I don't really like this interpretation of calculus, as it makes it sound far more mystical than it is (it is not mystical at all, in fact). What calculus does is make precise statements out of vague things we say in English, like the word "infinity." It defines and makes precise such things.
  16. It isn't, using the usual definition of an infinite sum. Other mathematics can make use of it in very specialized areas, but don't cite that result. It is wrong except when you define completely new math that, though can be useful, does not obey laws of algebra. They basically use a different definition of "equals" to make that work. That's why it makes no sense and does not obey algebra.
  17. Well, it's not really a proof, because algebra doesn't work if you allow that. Any mathematical operation that allows 1 = 0 is probably not an operation you want.
  18. I knew that would be the proof you were referring to, Kaymyth Also eeee, Vi Hart I prefer the infinite series proof the best. This might because I teach calculus 2 and infinite series right now
  19. That's a good point. I know I can, but let's delay that a bit and remind me until post upgrade. Good idea.
  20. Some mathematicians might disagree on that philosophical interpretation on what mathematics is (whether it is human created or not), but fortunately such discussion is irrelevant to the core facts of mathematics: math is provable and once it is proven, it is true forever. No science is as strong as that. Mathematical proof is the strongest form of knowledge that exists, period. Even science (second best) requires data and the theoretical equations you get in physics may just be a very good approximation. Math has no issue with that. If a mathematical statement is true it is true forever. Nuclear annihilation, our sun going supernova, or silly people who think math is not important, all of those do nothing to impede upon the truth of such proven statements. And math doesn't require faith either, just a careful examination of definitions and logic. Tl;dr: even if you don't like math, math does not care and is true regardless of how you feel about it Of course, I'm a math professor so I'll extoll virtues forever. But it really is quite spectacular. Opinions change. Science does change (and is much better than opinion). Mathematical proofs are true literally forever.
  21. You'd need to be manually added to such a group which is why we aren't doing it that way.
  22. Usually pretty high. Especially at my 8am class, attendance is very high. My 9am less so. It very much shows on their quizzes. I once had an instructor evaluation of me say that, "there's no attendance grade so there's no point in coming to class." Apparently some students don't understand that coming to class is the best statistically significant way to get a higher grade. (Shocking, I know.) Oh well. On sequences and series, it very much shows if students rush through and are not careful. The students who don't show up to class to be trained on how specifically we want things stated (as the precision is important) will fail themselves. Then maybe they will learn that they should attend collegiate classes they are enrolled in. But... But math is the strongest form of truth in the entire universe, and it is human created, knowable, and provable! Isn't that awesome?
×
×
  • Create New...