>math nerd sits on a desk with a pen and paper doing his gay little math
>I get MATLAB or Ansys to solve literally anything I want
FUCKING NERDS

Touching my penis doesn't feel pleasurable anymore, I don't feel pleasure and there's no precum, no climax, orgasming is just reaching a point where I pee a little bit of sperm with a sense of heat attached to it. Scientifically what happened? I'm intact and my gland never has touched anything outside my foreskin. Is it depression? The prostate? The balls?

best companies for internships?
pic rel is what i've landed

But why would an expert on GPS oppose relativity so vehemently?

https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/

/sci/ told me GPS was incontrovertible experimental evidence for special relativity. That GPS works because of special relativity and that it was settled science. I wanted to mogg the antiscience chuds gps style so I started doing some research for myself but now I'm not so sure anymore...

I'm lost. Should I trust the experts on this one? Tell me what to think.

My life is full of scepticism and cynicism and I feel that if nothing changes in it Ill get myself killed.

are there any scientifically proven stress management and relaxation techniques?

Solve and show your work.

whats your favorite system of paraconsistent logic, /sci/?

Let $A$ be biparte graph with P(A) = NP, and let $x$ be a truth assignment such that $x_i$ is 'false' for some $i \in A \subseteq N$. We construct a circuit of size $poly(n)$, where $n = |x| + |x| - 1 + |A|.$ Then $x(e)$ is 'true' iff $e /in G_x$ for some $G_x$ with n vertices, where $G_x<span class="underline"> = \{v \in N: x_v \neq x_u \} </span>$. From the theorem on a graph, we have $|x(e)| \leq O(n)$. So, it takes at most $O(n)^{|x|}$ time to decide if $x$ is a $0-1$ vector. In other words, $O(n)^{|x|} \leq P(G_x) \leq O(n)^{|x|}$ (see, for instance, Theorem 3.1.5 in $L.D. Karpinski and A. Saxena (2013) A combinatorial proof of the graph isomorphism theorem.$.)

We now claim that the bipartite graph, whose adjacency matrix has $\begin{bmatrix} P(A) &amp; \ldots &amp; 0 \\ \vdots &amp; \ddots &amp; \vdots \\ 0 &amp; \ldots &amp; P(A) \end{bmatrix}$ as its submatrix, is the complement of a 3-regular graph:

$G_x = \overline{G_x[u,v]} = (V(G_x), E(G_x) \setminus \{uv\})$

As we have seen, for the proof to go through, we need to show $\forall v,v' \in N : \sum_{u \in V(G_x[v,v'])} w(uv) = 0$. This is an immediate consequence of our construction of $G_x$. For if we consider, $G_x[v,v'] = \{ u \in N : u = v \lor u = v' \}$ (where $\cap /math] and <script type="math/tex"> \cup /math] are the standard sets operations), and observe that <script type="math/tex"> uv \in G_x[v,v'] \implies u = v \lor u = v'$. Therefore, $w(uv) = 0 \implies \sum_{u \in V(G_x[v,v'])} w(uv) = \sum_{u \in V(G_x[v,v'] \setminus \{v\})} w(uv) + \sum_{u \in V(G_x[v,v'] \setminus \{v'\})} w(uv) = 0$, which is true, as required. $\tag*{$ QED

How does the brain read and generate electrical signals as thoughts? What makes electrical signal combo XYZ conjure up an image of a dog but electrical signal ABC lead to one pondering the nature of existence?
I don’t get it. How is abstract thought physically possible?