I really like potential functions. Have fun.

Ill post my code later.

Hints:

The growth can be found using a recursive series and the associated logic.

Will require a for loop.

Check out z-lib it looks sketchy but they have free shit.

If done right, you will have a page like this

I remember having a discussion with one of my math peers about floiting point error but it seems different than that. For example in c++

#Include <iostream></iostream>

#Include <cmath></cmath>

Using namespace std

Int main ()

{

\ declaration of string value

string X=" "

\ ui to get an input

cout << "Enter a numerical value";

cin >> X;

cout << "\n" << endl;

*conversion, redeclaration with associated values *\

const double pi =3.1415

double stragcel = stof(X) * pi * 2

\ print of your cute twinkry

cout << "The amount of cute twinkry in your soy titties is " << stragcel << " inches squared. You might wanna get that checked out." << " In terms of the range of the oscillations of your cute twinkry it is " << sin(stragcel) << " to " << sin(-stragcel) << ". This is dangerously off the charts. We cannot help your cute twinkry, sir." << endl;

return 0;

}I have done similar things with floating points but the error seems to be constant with int, float, and double. What is it?

Recently, an article came out talking about findings from analysis of data from particle collisions. It suggests (with some error) that there is a low probability for protons to have charm quarks in their bag (instead of up quarks im assuming). This is interesting if found to be true. The main differentiation between protons and neutrons are the combinations of quarks uud & udd respective to the order. Being that the is low probabilty of havin a stable configuration ucd to build protons thats pretty strange. Pretty cool stuff dood. Figure it out

Its elaborates on the concepts decently. While providing many excercises to cement the concepts taught.

I really like this experiment. It has interesting physics. Its ironic how the discovery was made during the 30's when bose and einstein were building models to explain the phenomena during the mid 20's(Enric Perez, "Einsteins..."). It is also interesting how this began a gradual trend of building toy theoretical models before experimentation. It is granted due to the tight logic and the impositions of mathematical techniques on the world. Maybe quantum set theory an solve this. Check out "Einsteins quantum theory of the monatomic ideal gas: non-statistical argument for statistics." By enric perez. The coverage is the main source cited.

To the mathematically inclined this book has presented value to me so far.

It isnt a book one should expect to read in on session or even in a couple of months of pure devotion. Instead it is material that should be reviewed and digested in conjunction with one's own studies and pursuits. It covers a vast variety of topics found in pure maths, but the real meat that one can chew on is its discourse on the philosophy of maths, techniques used to be a mathematician, and the historical mentions.

Kinda expensive though. 64 bucks.

Going to be cool

Seriously though, go through your book aswell bud.

Most of the nobel prizes are b.s. political trash, but science is less affected with the trash of humanity. The physics winners goes to the three people that shown that bell's inequality can be broken with a specific experimental set-up, the person who did the experiment, and the person who applied it to create quantum computing. If microscopic engineering improves and current atom by atom materials construction techniques can be industrialized we may see a phase of technology where the spin parity of photons instead of electrons can be used for quantum computing. Of course reality limits technology, but innovation uses limitations to create technology!

I was studying linear algebra and was reminded of this book that I bought some time ago. I haven't finished it (2 chapters in) but the introductory concepts coupled with my random study of SU(2) group and its algebra gave me some rudimentary insight into the utility of Lie Algebra's and why it was good enough to be used for Pauli matrices and describing spin, but not good enough to be true vectors in 3-d+1 time space.

For those interested, there is also a good channel that goes over the boom in-depth and you can pretend youre a graduate student getting lectures and working problems from the book as homework.

Here is thw link