You must log in or register to comment.
Wait bottom mathematican is using j=√-1 instead of i and not the engineer? Because I’m EE gang, and all my homies use j.
The fun starts when you study quaternions
i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = ijk = −1This can’t be real
They’re actually very useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion
(…I think you may have gotten whooshed…)
That part also got me really confused. All the mathematicans I know use i while engineers use i or j depending on the kind of engineer. I’ve never seen a Pikachu engineer using anything other than j.
Pikachu engineer
That’s a fucking favorite now. Keeping that in my back pocket.
Why would a mathematician use j for imaginary numbers and why would engineer be mad at them?
Fake and gay.
No way the engineer corrects the mathematician for using j instead of i.
The mathematician also used “operative” instead of, uh, something else, and “associative” instead of “commutative”
“operative” instead of, uh, something else
I think they meant “operand”. As in, in the way dy/dx can sometimes be treated as a fraction and dx treated as a value.
I think you mean operator. The operand is the target of an operator.
The operand is the target of an operator
Correct. Thus, dx is an operand. It’s a thing by which you multiply the rest of the equation (or, in the case of dy/dx, by which you divide the dy).
I’d say the $\int dx$ is the operator and the integrand is the operand.
You’re misunderstanding the post. Yes, the reality of maths is that the integral is an operator. But the post talks about how “dx can be treated as an [operand]”. And this is true, in many (but not all) circumstances.
∫(dy/dx)dx = ∫dy = y
Or the chain rule:
(dz/dy)(dy/dx) = dz/dx
In both of these cases, dx or dy behave like operands, since we can “cancel” them through division. This isn’t rigorous maths, but it’s a frequently-useful shorthand.
I do understand it differently, but I don’t think I misunderstood. I think what they meant is the physicist notation I’m (as a physicist) all too familiar with:
∫ f(x) dx = ∫ dx f(x)
In this case, because f(x) is the operand and ∫ dx the operator, it’s still uniquely defined.
NGL, this is hot.
Is anyone doing anything tonight?
Something something distance calls for norm, not just squares.
||i||² + ||1||² = 2
operative?
Also mathematicians use i for imaginary, engineers use j. The story does not add up. I have never seen a single mathematician use j for imaginary.
Engineer here: mostly use i, but have seen j used plenty. First time I saw j used was by a maths professor.
As an EE, I used both. Def not a mathematician though. Fuck that, I just plug variables into programs now.
I have both mechanical and electrical backgrounds. MEs like I, EEs prefer j
so after he angered his bf he got fucked as in trouble with him or sex? raped? wtf lol
Wtf mate, nothing that serious. Anon teased him and the score was settled when they did the thing later that night.
The story looks pretty fake and gay anyway, but it’s more wholesome than your idea.
I think rather
d/dxis the operator. You apply it to an expression to bind free occurrences ofxin that expression. For example,dx²/dxis best understood asd/dx (x²). The notation would be clear if you implement calculus in a program.If not fraction, why fraction shaped?
