Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IcyTea31]

I'm glad you parsed "waking up to pee" like that and not as a nightmare scenario.

[wierd]

You.... pee kids?!?!

Remember, folks: grammar is important too, not just maths!

It's a punctuation error.  Should be a comma after "pee", and before "kids."

The statement still holds though. One is not awake, and not properly able to do mental gymnastics when they are hypnogogic.

[hector13]

I love eating my family and peeing kids.

[wierd]

sadly they are goat kids, otherwise I would be set for life.

[IcyTea31]

The statement still holds though. One is not awake, and not properly able to do mental gymnastics when they are hypnogogic.

It also holds by the other way that statement can be parsed: most people aren't able to perform mental gymnastics while drowning in urine.

[wierd]

The statement still holds though. One is not awake, and not properly able to do mental gymnastics when they are hypnogogic.

It also holds by the other way that statement can be parsed: most people aren't able to perform mental gymnastics while drowning in urine.

surprise juvenile golden shower in the dead of night definitely does not predispose toward having full access to one's faculties, that is for sure. Not that I would have experienced it, I don't have any bratty children to worry about.

[TD1]

Yea, 'cause you peed them all 

[Mathel]

(-x²)^k≠ (-x)^2k

I am going to limit results to real numbers.
(-x²)^k≠ (-x)^2k <=> {x∈{R}-0  ∧ k=2n+1 ∧ n∈{Z}}

If X is 0, both sides equal 0, if k is even, then both sides end up positive.

Edit: Corrected n to whole numbers, as k can be 1 or negative as well.

[wierd]

Yea, 'cause you peed them all 

Pay attention!

sadly they are goat kids, otherwise I would be set for life.

See, I eat the small children, and wake up to having to pee out goat kids. Very unfortunate set of circumstances you see. If I peed out human children, I would be set for life, but no. Being an inhuman monster is not sufficient armor against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune it seems.

/s (because seriously, this is getting absurd. You know what I meant, stop being a pedant )


ON TOPIC:

Yes. The obvious "all factors are even numbers" case is obvious, as is the case where a factor or exponent is 0. 

And you guys are making me be too awake to go back to sleep. Shame on you.

[methylatedspirit]

I was just screwing around with the Maclaurin series of e^x by replacing x with -x². I was trying to get the Maclaurin series of e^-x2, and subsequently the Maclaurin series of the integral of e^-x2.
My wild guess is as follows: The thing I wrote initially was because I naively assumed that the identity (a)^nm= (a)^nm would hold for negative values of a. (-x² is always negative for real x)

EDIT: By factorizing (-x²)^k into (-1)^k(x²)^k, I can simplify to (-1)^kx^2k, which does seem to hold, if only for integer values of k. I end up with an alternating series, but that's probably fine.

Maybe. I don't really understand these things.

[Iduno]

I'm having weird feelings about work. On one hand it's mind-numbing tedium and unfulfilling dreck punctuated by moments of blinding hot rage, the most basic tools and equipment barely work, policies and procedures are counter-intuitive, and coworkers are hard to relate to if not downright infuriating sometimes. I don't get paid enough and this is nowhere close to where I wanted to be at this point in my life.

On the other hand praise is swift, frequent and sincere, I feel like I genuinely make a difference (within the scope of my dumb unimportant job), I learn new ways to do things all the time, and my overlords have been nothing but supportive and helpful when I needed to be away. I also have a suspicion that I could be earning a promotion if I keep working towards it, a feelig I never had at my old job.

That sounds better than any job I've ever had. At best I'm punished for doing too good of a job, which is the closest I'll get to an acknowledgement I did a good job. More likely, the expectations will be changed to prove I didn't meet them.

[Hanslanda]

The math... It burns!

[TamerVirus]

EXILE THEM TO THE MATH THREAD!
...
...
_{Is there a math thread?}

[bloop_bleep]

(-x²)^k≠ (-x)^2k

Well, yes. -x^2 is distinct from (-x)^2, as the first is equal to -1*x^2 whereas the second is equal to x^2.

Then when you take both to the power of k, you get (-1)^k * x^(2k) and x^(2k). These are equal if and only if (-1)^k = 1, which in turn happens if and only if k is an even integer.

If you're trying to find the Maclaurin series of e^(-x^2), you'll have to find the latter's derivatives manually. This is not that hard, as that function is just the composition of e^x and -x^2, both of whose derivatives are easily known, so you can just apply the Chain Rule. (The first derivative is -2x*e^(-x^2). The rest you can figure out with both the Chain Rule and the Product Rule.)

EXILE THEM TO THE MATH THREAD!
...
...
_{Is there a math thread?}

Yus.

[pisskop]

it's a lonely place, where remainders dream of sins and imaginary numbers