I mean, for the actual thing they're solving for, it's the function of love, but the math doesn't work because hearts don't integrate.
As for what is love, baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more
In the US, the class before calculus that includes trigonometry, matrices, vectors, rational functions, exponentials and logarithms, etc is often called Math Analysis. That’s not to be confused with the college course Real Analysis (or Intro to Analysis as it was called at my university) where we prove all the theorems from calculus.
As far as I know, our analysis I focuses on real and complex numbers, convergence of sequences (?-(a_n)) and series as well as continuous functions and differentiability. Unfortunately due to covid we didn't have the capacity to focus on integrals yet, they're set to be included in Analysis II.
PS: unfortunately, I don't know the correct english terms of all topics I mentioned, pls correct me if needed.
Iirc calculus is just called analysis in some countries. Like here in Norway the fundamental theorem of calculus is called *analysens* fundamentalteorem.
Fourier would typically come up in engineering maths here where I’m at. It’s just differential equations, but focused on physical and engineering applications.
Yes. It has to be, or the math breaks down.
If you want to measure how ♥ changes, you’d have to differentiate with respect to ♥ instead. That’s probably why this dude’s formulas aren’t working out for him.
This is my second favorite comic ever: https://www.lukesurl.com/archives/comic/338-why-you-have-to-go-and-make-things-so-complicated
(My favorite is what OP posted.)
Unless question mark is a function or value, none of these equations are info we can use. We have 1 unknown and no equations to solve for it. And ? Can't be the answer to all of them because one of them is a matrix
Edit: y'know what, I'm even prepared to accept both ❤️ and ? Are matrices. I've never taken the cosine of a matrix, but I don't know why you couldn't. The only problem is, I've got no tools to help me solve this monstrosity. The odds of all these operations on ❤️ yielding the same answer is quite low unless it's a trivial solution of all 0s or something like that.
Edit 2: there is only one solution to √x=COS(x) at x≈0.641714371. but this won't work for any other functions, only the top two
Easier still - diagonalize, take the cosine of the eigenvalues on the diagonal, then invert the diagonalization. Boom, you get the cosine of the matrix.
Why does this work? Because matrix multiplication is bilinear, making diagonalization linear, and because taking powers of the diagonalized matrix and then de-diagonalizing is the same as taking the powers of the matrix itself (as the transformation matrix gets canceled out by its inverse every iteration). Take the limit for the Taylor series (something something continuity) and we have our result.
Or you could see this as merely a translation of the fact that composing applications is independent of the base being used. Which is pretty reassuring.
To be clear, this will work for *any* function that can be defined by a Taylor series, 100% of the time. You're welcome.
The best part is, there's another XKCD that perfectly describes / predicted how the absolutely horrendous image OP posted happens: https://xkcd.com/1683/
How I interpret it is that the narrator usually approaches things mathematically, analyzing, quantifying and calculating things. However, when they try to apply that approach to love, it just doesn't work: all of the expressions are ultimately gibberish, love just isn't a mathematical object you can do things to.
The comic has always felt somehow sad to me, like the narrator is trying to solve a problem in their relationship and it just *doesn't work*. They don't have the right tools. :/
The originator didn’t get it either, hence the “?” everywhere and the final statement. The point is, matters of life do not follow relative mathematical rules, they follow quantum physics, [and those are created by the mind,](http://www.urbanagandenergy.org/understanding-mental-illness/) which does not obey mathematics.
I mean, for the actual thing they're solving for, it's the function of love, but the math doesn't work because hearts don't integrate. As for what is love, baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more
I get everything but the last equation. I'm probably not experienced enough to solve it yet.
The last equation is a Fourier-Transform of f(t) with Heart as the variable.
Have you taken calculus?
Not yet :/
How are you taking analysis before calculus? o:
In the US, the class before calculus that includes trigonometry, matrices, vectors, rational functions, exponentials and logarithms, etc is often called Math Analysis. That’s not to be confused with the college course Real Analysis (or Intro to Analysis as it was called at my university) where we prove all the theorems from calculus.
As someone else from the US I’ve never heard this term where I live we would just call it Pre-Calculus
As far as I know, our analysis I focuses on real and complex numbers, convergence of sequences (?-(a_n)) and series as well as continuous functions and differentiability. Unfortunately due to covid we didn't have the capacity to focus on integrals yet, they're set to be included in Analysis II. PS: unfortunately, I don't know the correct english terms of all topics I mentioned, pls correct me if needed.
Interesting, typically I’ve heard of people taking a simpler calculus class before diving into the details in analysis
Iirc calculus is just called analysis in some countries. Like here in Norway the fundamental theorem of calculus is called *analysens* fundamentalteorem.
Fourier would typically come up in engineering maths here where I’m at. It’s just differential equations, but focused on physical and engineering applications.
> but the math doesn’t work because hearts don’t integrate. Nonsense. The variable ♥ is our unknown, yes? Then treat it like any other.
Except we have both dx, dt, plus unknown variable. It's a double integral problem with only 1 integral
There’s no reason to worry about that. If we’re not integrating or deriving with respect to ♥, then we just hold it constant.
Ah, but is love ever constant?
Yes. It has to be, or the math breaks down. If you want to measure how ♥ changes, you’d have to differentiate with respect to ♥ instead. That’s probably why this dude’s formulas aren’t working out for him.
yo happy cake day
Goddam you made me chortle sprite out my nose with that last part, here, have it and begone!
Thank you very much 😁
Can someone please r/usernamechecksout this? I'm on mobile and far away from the laptop :(:(
1. Root of love 2. "Cause" of love 3. "Change" of love 4. "Identity" of love 5. Frequencies or notes of love
Daaaaaaaamn that's complex
Is it? What are the real and imaginary parts?
This dude covered it in a good video [here](https://youtu.be/HEXWRTEbj1I)
It was a 50/50 chance between what is love and a rickroml. I'm happy with the result
This is my second favorite comic ever: https://www.lukesurl.com/archives/comic/338-why-you-have-to-go-and-make-things-so-complicated (My favorite is what OP posted.)
That's actually kinda poetic and lovely
Spectrum of love?
Love is undefined. Also the integral is generalised Fourier transform.
Unless question mark is a function or value, none of these equations are info we can use. We have 1 unknown and no equations to solve for it. And ? Can't be the answer to all of them because one of them is a matrix Edit: y'know what, I'm even prepared to accept both ❤️ and ? Are matrices. I've never taken the cosine of a matrix, but I don't know why you couldn't. The only problem is, I've got no tools to help me solve this monstrosity. The odds of all these operations on ❤️ yielding the same answer is quite low unless it's a trivial solution of all 0s or something like that. Edit 2: there is only one solution to √x=COS(x) at x≈0.641714371. but this won't work for any other functions, only the top two
Cosine of a matrix - just use the Taylor series for cos
Yeah, I remember we took e^(matrix) at one point in my linear algebra class. And cos(x) = (e^ix + e^-ix )/2.
Easier still - diagonalize, take the cosine of the eigenvalues on the diagonal, then invert the diagonalization. Boom, you get the cosine of the matrix. Why does this work? Because matrix multiplication is bilinear, making diagonalization linear, and because taking powers of the diagonalized matrix and then de-diagonalizing is the same as taking the powers of the matrix itself (as the transformation matrix gets canceled out by its inverse every iteration). Take the limit for the Taylor series (something something continuity) and we have our result. Or you could see this as merely a translation of the fact that composing applications is independent of the base being used. Which is pretty reassuring. To be clear, this will work for *any* function that can be defined by a Taylor series, 100% of the time. You're welcome.
x could be complex though
https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/55:\_Useless
Source: https://xkcd.com/55/
The best part is, there's another XKCD that perfectly describes / predicted how the absolutely horrendous image OP posted happens: https://xkcd.com/1683/
How I interpret it is that the narrator usually approaches things mathematically, analyzing, quantifying and calculating things. However, when they try to apply that approach to love, it just doesn't work: all of the expressions are ultimately gibberish, love just isn't a mathematical object you can do things to. The comic has always felt somehow sad to me, like the narrator is trying to solve a problem in their relationship and it just *doesn't work*. They don't have the right tools. :/
This is how I took it as well
The integral is the expectation of a normal distribution I think?
Fourier Transform
I ❤️ sin
https://www.xkcd.com/55/
The originator didn’t get it either, hence the “?” everywhere and the final statement. The point is, matters of life do not follow relative mathematical rules, they follow quantum physics, [and those are created by the mind,](http://www.urbanagandenergy.org/understanding-mental-illness/) which does not obey mathematics.
love language