User Controls
ITT: gay retards argue about base conversion
-
2017-06-10 at 11:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Rebirth Search Results
re·sid·u·al
riˈzijo͞oəl/
adjective
adjective: residual
1.
remaining after the greater part or quantity has gone.
when converting between two bases bidirectionally there is an inequality in measurement which is due to space becoming occupied on algebraic rings, because the two bases may not form a perfect parallel in some cases
In mathematics, we call that a "remainder".
Spo, are you going to college? -
2017-06-10 at 11:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon In mathematics, we call that a "remainder".
Spo, are you going to college?
"The difference between the observed value of the dependent variable (y) and the predicted value (ŷ) is called the residual (e)."
substitute the word "residual" with "remainder". does it make a difference? semantic attacks are so gay and irrelevant, yes a remainder is a residual and a residual is a remainder, big fuckin deal -
2017-06-10 at 11:30 PM UTC
algebraic ring that forms between two nonadjacent base systems
This sequence of words has no meaning. You're just stringing words together you don't know the meanings of. -
2017-06-10 at 11:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Rebirth dont you think its common sense that the elements of an algebraic ring that forms between two nonadjacent base systems would form or being translatable to a kind of topological matrix of possibilities and residuals?
Originally posted by Rebirth dont you think its common sense that the elements of an algebraic ring that forms between two nonadjacent base systems would form or being translatable to a kind of topological matrix of possibilities and residuals?
Originally posted by Rebirth dont you think its common sense that the elements of an algebraic ring that forms between two nonadjacent base systems would form or being translatable to a kind of topological matrix of possibilities and residuals?
Originally posted by Rebirth dont you think its common sense that the elements of an algebraic ring that forms between two nonadjacent base systems would form or being translatable to a kind of topological matrix of possibilities and residuals?
Originally posted by Rebirth dont you think its common sense that the elements of an algebraic ring that forms between two nonadjacent base systems would form or being translatable to a kind of topological matrix of possibilities and residuals?
-
2017-06-10 at 11:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Rebirth "The difference between the observed value of the dependent variable (y) and the predicted value (ŷ) is called the residual (e)."
substitute the word "residual" with "remainder". does it make a difference? semantic attacks are so gay and irrelevant, yes a remainder is a residual and a residual is a remainder, big fuckin deal
yes, substituting one word for the other makes any mathematical statement using them incoherent. You may not realize this but terms in mathematics have stricter definitions than in common language. -
2017-06-10 at 11:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny This sequence of words has no meaning. You're just stringing words together you don't know the meanings of.
an algebraic ring has elements that have distributed functions among them. these two elements are base1 and base2. now if this ring is imagined as a topology, the residue from conversion which causes a lack of parallel gets caught in this ring in the sections that are not only base1 and base2. caught in the net of a distributive. -
2017-06-10 at 11:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Rebirth "The difference between the observed value of the dependent variable (y) and the predicted value (ŷ) is called the residual (e)."
substitute the word "residual" with "remainder". does it make a difference? semantic attacks are so gay and irrelevant, yes a remainder is a residual and a residual is a remainder, big fuckin deal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)Residual
The vertical distance between a data point and the graph of a regression equation. The residual is positive if the data point is above the graph. The residual is negative if the data point is below the graph. The residual is 0 only when the graph passes through the data point.
It is a statistical term. At least Google your shit, you moron. -
2017-06-10 at 11:35 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-06-10 at 11:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)
It is a statistical term. At least Google your shit, you moron.
is a distance between two elements not a form of remainder? as in, it is an element in and of itself. residual = remainder -
2017-06-10 at 11:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny There's one small issue with your plan here:
and these functions are additions and multiplication. how do you reach complex and imaginary numbers on a linear unidimensional numberline lanny? it clearly has to do with interactions between these elements on y z axes. do you really think the structure of numbers is simply a uniform distribution, a number line with multiple axes is the only way to explain things such as the logic of primes. what would you call these structures if not rings or radial distributions like hovering around the nucleus? -
2017-06-10 at 11:51 PM UTCfucking rekt
-
2017-06-10 at 11:51 PM UTCSpo are you going to college?
-
2017-06-10 at 11:53 PM UTCi have a 3.85 gpa and im a math major
-
2017-06-10 at 11:55 PM UTC
-
2017-06-11 at 12:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Rebirth and these functions are additions and multiplication.
Hey, you finally read the first paragraph off a wikipedia article. Good job bro.how do you reach complex and imaginary numbers on a linear unidimensional numberline lanny?
You don't, and this has absolutely nothing to do with base conversion you retard. -
2017-06-11 at 12:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny You don't, and this has absolutely nothing to do with base conversion you retard.
you do with basic ring functions f(x)
and it does because numbers are objects and the residual goes somewhere that leaves a sum of 0 loss OR gain. the number line is in constant equilibrium and this has everything to do with base conversion because the distributive net is stretched outside a linear 1D number line. -
2017-06-11 at 12:39 AM UTCok, this was fun for a bit but I don't really feel like continuing to point out how totally you fail to grasp not only the contents of mathematical study but the fundamental objective of the field.
Post last edited by Lanny at 2017-06-11T06:34:51.487794+00:00 -
2017-06-11 at 12:44 AM UTCthis whole thread is me being right and approaching the same problems from an alternate yet logical perspective which puts the inherent value of a number in a multitude of perspectives. then i get dumb ppl ad hominem'ing me into oblivion and claiming an advanced understand of the subject im discussing without evidence, as if you can try to use imaginary credentials to discount mathematical insight.
-
2017-06-11 at 6:35 AM UTC"logical"
-
2017-06-11 at 7:47 AM UTCTeach me how to be sensible
Logical
Responsible
Practical
