/sci/ - Science & Math

I've studied ER for 5 years now and have only 2 years worth of credits.

Time to drop out and rope. Brainlets can't compete. I got no skills, no work experience, no credentials. I wasted my youth and life aiming too high, no one in my family has a university degree and neither will I.

I just can't or know how to study

>>12687262
I can't make the call as I can't even judge videos games. I mean those are some big boy questions, right there.
Theory of aesthetics.., economy..., I donno. I give up.

>>12379480
>Nobody is able to refute him.
Yeah well since he rejects axiomatics, there's not much ground for refutation in a formal mathematical sense.
Nobody should waste time discussing "are there finite amounts of naturals in the universe" for more than 15 minutes with anyone.

Nobody will really drop [math]{\mathbb N}[/math]. Then again, I think there's barely a practical reason to assume the class of Dedekind cuts for a set (unless you really need to work with [math]hom(-, {\mathbb N})[/math] or [math]hom(-, U(1))[/math] and the like), so yeah - sure if he demands more realizable math be taught, that's a good enterprise I guess. His geometry and algebraic number theory content is good too, so he gets a pass from me.

>>12379480
>Nobody is able to refute him.
Yeah well since he rejects axiomatics, there's not much ground for refutation in a formal mathematical sense.
Nobody should waste time discussing "are there finite amounts of naturals in the universe" for more than 15 minutes with anyone.
Nobody will really drop [math]{\mathbb N}[/math] and I think there's barely a practical reason to assume the class of Dedekind cuts for a set (unless you really need to work with [math]hom(-, {\mathbb N})[/math] or [math]hom(-, U(1))[/math] and the like), so yeah - sure if he demands more realizable math be taught, that's a good enterprise I guess. His geometry and algebraic number theory content is good too, so he gets a pass from me.

But there's already a thread on the Burger.

>>12305687

>>12130696
EXPENDABLE TAIKONAUTS

>>11194126

>>Exactly. Why isn't there a shadow?
>>Citation is required. All available evidence is heavily contested and always has been.
>>Yes you did, albeit passive aggressive and providing you are the same individual. I wasn't discussing the soviets and technical know how was limited to rockets exploding prior to leaving the atmosphere until we suddenly accomplished the moon landing, repeatedly, without fail.

>>11194142

>>Odd looking photo.
You're catching on.

>>Perceived insult.
You were insulting. If you had an valid argument, this would not be required. Besides that, you offered no refutation worth consideration. Yes, it invalidates the consideration of your opinion when you contribute nothing more then a teenagers equivalent of an insult without any valuable input.

>>Remote control.
Consider the delay, the relevance of this action, the actual visuals of this display, and the fact it could not capture star light in the background, no display of an actual flare from the engines requiring fuel to thrust it into the atmosphere, and so much more. You've still ignored every other counter point and indication made about the validity of this one photo, which is an amateur attempt to circumvent the main question of this thread.

Get your shit together. Jesus christ.

>>11194145

I'm here to hear your explanation, not provide you with one. I'm done hold you'lls hands on this board. I've given more then enough answers to questions bigger then life here. I want to see what any of you, if any, have to offer.