nootropics/physiology/pharmacology-maxxing general
Got a 45% on my first calc3 exam (integral and differential calculus in 3d space)
I work a part-time job and have neither time nor motivation.
The only solution to this is physiology/pharmacology-maxxing.
Heres the strategy I've devised: >frequent cold showers to keep up energy levels >3 cups of black coffee per day minimum >gorillamind "smooth" and "shroom" >nicotine >creatine >8 hours sleep aided by melatonin >drinking water constantly >no-fap for possible testosterone increase >cardio everyday >becoming purely egoistic in order to eliminate stress originating from the concern for other people and their thoughts
What if studying Mathematics is pointless? I mean theorems are just specific parts of numbers organized in a cumulative fashion. Maybe I should write fiction and poetry instead. Thoughts?
How long do you think it would take to obtain a complete understanding of undergraduate physics? I have a pretty strong grasp of calculus 1, 2, and 3 and some knowledge of linear algebra, partial and ordinary differential equations, and have taken several physics courses.
Hi bros, i'm studying math in university (i'm from Brazil) and i don't find good precalculus books. Every book i read explains things using the functions graphs only, i need a more rigorous way of showing things about function like monotony and extreme points. Do you guys have any recommendations? We are using precalculus from Demana. Thanks!
Do you guys have experience with star battle puzzles?
The rules are that there are exactly 2 stars in every row, column, and territory and that stars cannot be adjacent to each other.
(The colours in pic related are only notes for myself and the Xs highlight tiles where there cannot be stars.)
Do you have some methods that can be used to make these easier to solve?
The last couple of these star battle puzzles that I've done always lead to a roadblock where I didn't know how to continue, and then I just randomly placed down the final stars and stumbled into the solution, which very much feels like cheating to me.
if you can create an entire set, that turns out to be useful, based on a notion that completely contradicts a previously stablished rule ( a number squared being equal to a negative number, which contradicts the first notion of squares ), who's to say the same cannot be made with, for example, irrational numbers?
let's call r the number that, when divided by an irrational number, equals a rational number
