Show newer

❗️A Ukrainian TV host interviews a Rabbi in : "Why do Jews rarely speak Ukrainian?"The Jew replies in : "Why should we spend a couple of years relearning everything? Soon everyone here will be speaking either Russian again or Hebrew. And we already know

@Zergling_man

You can do the same thing for bigger numbers by sutracting 1 then mu!tiplying the number by 3 then adding 1 in that order

(1.75-1)*3+1 =3.25

1.75^3=5.359 rounded

2 of 2

@sardonicsmile

If Black Irish are real Irish than Hungarians who say they are Ukrainian are real Ukrainians

Two is not a quantity unless defined, here, as two trees.
What if I want two pounds?
What if I want two ounces?
What if I want two gallons?
What if I want two apples?
Two is not a real thing.
@Terry The unit-prince of drones will continue to rise with increasing sophistication as the unit price of cruise missiles continues to fall with increasing optimization until the two become one, as was foretold in the sibylline oracles.

@Zergling_man

If you have a ramp on the ground at an angle measured relative to the ground where the angle is zero if the ramp is parellel to the ground

The tangent converts the angle to a slope

The sign gives you the height of the ramp divided by it's diagnol path

The cosine gives you the horizontal distance divided by it's diagnol path

You can also do ratios of side lengths given dimensions of triangles using the names opposite, adjacent and hypoteneous but this is harder to visualize

@Zergling_man

1.3333333333333333^3

is approxinstely equal to

1.9999999999999999^3

according to the drecribed estimation technique

(4/3)^3 is approximately equal to 2

3"((4/3)-1)+1 = 2

You are multiplying the digits after 1 by 3 and keeping the ones digit the same for numbers greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 4/3

1 of 2

@Zergling_man

I would not know how to use the method to calculate cubes for numbers above 4/3 because 3*4/3=2

And I am looking at the digits after 1 when you cube a number above 1 written as a decimal

@Zergling_man

I would say that for small angles in radians the sine of theta being approximately equal to theta is because of a relationship

When an angle is small enough

Where the angle measures both a section of a circle and also is an angle within a triangle

When the largest side of a triangle is the same as the radius of the circle

the perimeter of a section of a circle having an angle of theta

is close to the length of a side in a right angle triangle having an angle of theta

@Zergling_man

If the increase in length is less than 10% and greater than 0% it approximately works

It should not work for a decrease in length

@Zergling_man

The volume is not three times the length

the change in volume is approximately three times the change in length

If the change in length is less than 10% the original length

@iwoxuqun

What can slip without hurting friendship?

Can A friend-slip slip without hurting friendship whatever a friend-slip is?

What can slip without hurting friendship?

@Zergling_man

Only for numbers in the range that happens to be used for thermal expansion calculations for some materials near room temperature when the temperature change is small enough

I do not think it works for large numbers

The sine of theta in radians is also close to theta for angles smaller than a certain angle but not for angles larger than a certain angle

The coefficient of thermal expansion for volume is usually 3 times the coeficcient for expansion for length

To estimate the cube for a number between 1 and 1.1

Step 1

Subtract 1 from the number

Step 2

Multiply the quantity you calculated in step 1 by 3

Step 3

Add 1 to the number you calculated in step 2

Finished

@KingOfWhiteAmerica @shortstories This is the truth! There have been no dramatic paradigmatic breakthroughs since the old geniuses.

I think the reason is that modern physics has abandoned empirical science in favour of becoming math fueled speculation. It is pretty obvious that if you no longer check your findings against empirical reality, you will make very little real progress, but the number of "models" and inferences will grow at an explosive rate, leading to lots of waste of time.

@h4890 @shortstories

… the reason is that modern physics has abandoned empirical science in favour of becoming math fueled speculation.

Indeed, this is what has happened; but the why isn’t really clear just from looking at it. Why did physics abandon empiricism, in favor of purely mathematical models ? It’s obvious there were more physical things yet to discover. Tbh I think the reason it happened is precisely because it doesn’t make sense, to do so - it’s absurd on its face. Sensible things almost always tend to work in the White Man’s favor; and we can’t very well have that now, can we ?

Show older
Merovingian Club

A club for red-pilled exiles.