Dark Humor

submitted by zyxzevn from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Raavan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Wtf

I know this is a joke but I just HAVE to

I understood what you did until

d( -i*k*PI*exp( -i*PI*k) + x+k )/dk

You have done something I don't know/understand, or maybe made a mistake idk. I think what might fit in here is

d(e-iπk /(-iπ) + x + k)/dk

So when you differentiate you get

[e-iπk * (-iπ) ÷ (-iπ)] + 1

Edit: lookin at the video you linked now.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I did indeed mixed up the factor by the divisor in my hurry.
The integral of exp(x)= exp(x) as you understood, and I used that to extend exp(x) to d(exp(x)) / dx

Obviously, it is only a small error and does not influence the outcome. ;-)

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You need your fellow mathematician to disprove this... I'm re-understanding the definition of your fkn wrong USAGE of derivatives right now !

Physicists are ALWAYS the first ones, that really believe (not more than that), they can fuck around with math.

And you know what: I know now EXACTLY why it's wrong, but i won't tell you any more.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

For physics, almost correct is correct enough. For Maths it is different. ;-)

I think that theoretical physics also uses the:
1+2+3+4+5... = -1/12
Just to make one of their weird ideas work.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, i know this one. It's mathematically complete nonsense, but funny. No offense taken.