This was made by someone who doesn't understand any of it.
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
1091 points (98.6% liked)
memes
15502 readers
3400 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
As a kid I thought Pythagoras was silly for making a math cult. Now that I'm older I get it.
Science is validated by the new information replacing the old. Al-Khwarizmi worked out numbers so we don’t have to,
Mathematics ^teacher^: That textbook was written thousands of years ago, and it is still as useful and relevant as ever, but I want you to buy this one I co-authored instead for the mere sum of $120, otherwise you won't pass.
Conflict of interest detected
This really happened?
Not the original commenter, but I briefly had one professor in college that did that (their book was $50, though). It was an elective course for me, fortunately. I was able to switch for a different class that fit the same requirement without being forced to buy a book the professor wrote.
Computer programming books ... Lol we don't print them any more, they'd be obsolete before hitting the shelves.
Reality: The universe was spontaneously created last thursday and there is no way for you to disprove it.
Nah mate, it was already in existence by last Tuesday afternoon and there is no way for you to disprove it.
Wrong for physics. Models to describe reality don't magically become wrong just because a model with better predictive power is discovered. Most old models are special cases of newer ones.
Yeah, Newton wasn't just a science bitch who is wrong, sometimes. His equations are the special case of General Relativity when acceleration is very low. Which is the world we live in.
Programming: that book was printed a month ago, and it's already obsolete.
Newspapers printed yesterday are already in the bin.
Tiktok posts last seconds before being discarded.
There's a whole bit in The Incredibles about how math has changed since Bob was in school
That was probably inspired by the USA's crappy national curriculum system of forcing kids to learn and use the lattice method which is 100% some sort of scam to make it look like math illiterate children are passing class and failing upwards.
I mean seriously, we've been using base 10 arab system for a millenia, but you're trying to tell me the department of education came up with a better method of drawing a damn chi square matrix abomination that makes even the two millenia old roman numeral system look good in comparison.
Oh that book is outdated. That's the second edition, you need the third addition to complete the one math problem I am basing your entire grade on for the course.
"Why yes I do happen to also be the author of the textbook for this course, why do you ask?"
Weird flex
The correct way to learn math is chronologically
Start with set theory. After about 300 pages you'll be able to show what 1+1 equals.
To be fair, the first 100 pages of that was justifying the set theory definition for what numbers are. The following two hundred papers are proving that a process of iterative counting we call addition functions in a consistent and useful way, given the set theory way of defining numbers. Once we get to that point, 1+1 is easy. Then we get to start talking more deeply about iteration as a process, leading to considering iterating addition (aka multiplication), iterating multiplication (aka exponents), etc. But that stuff is for the next thousand pages.
Remember, 0 is defined as the amount of things in the empty set {}. 1 is defined as the amount of things in a set containing the empty set {{}}. Each following natural number is defined as the amount of things in a set containing each of the previous nonnegative integers. So for example 2 is the amount of things in a set containing the empty set and a set containing the empty set {{}, {{}}}, 3 is the amount of things in a set containing the empty set, a set containing the empty set, and a set containing the empty set and a set containing the empty set {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}, etc. All natural numbers are just counting increasingly recursively labeled nothing. Welcome to math.
Wrong. Good look fooling around without algebra for years. New methods make old maths easy.
/s
No sarcasm. Being able to use numbers, integrals and derivatives makes a huge amount of maths easy. Exponential function and it's relatives are so handy. (Sin, Cos, Tan, Cot, log).
The Greeks didn't have any of that to do their math.
I'm the one being sarcastic Einstein
...and even newer methods make old math insanely complicated, but much more generalized. Like building definitions for things like numbers and basic arithmetic using set theory.
My favorite way to connect people with academia is pointing out how recently zero was invented because even the most reluctant “I don’t know math” person understands zero these days.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›