this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
413 points (98.8% liked)

Science Memes

15536 readers
2789 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 12 minutes ago* (last edited 12 minutes ago)

1/2 <-- not a number. Two numbers and an operator. But also a number.

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 2 points 19 minutes ago

The thing is that it's legit a fraction and d/dx actually explains what's going on under the hood. People interact with it as an operator because it's mostly looking up common derivatives and using the properties.

Take for example ∫f(x) dx to mean "the sum (∫) of supersmall sections of x (dx) multiplied by the value of x at that point ( f(x) ). This is why there's dx at the end of all integrals.

The same way you can say that the slope at x is tiny f(x) divided by tiny x or d*f(x) / dx or more traditionally (d/dx) * f(x).

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 1 points 25 minutes ago

We teach kids the derive operator being ' or ·. Then we switch to that writing which makes sense when you can use it properly enough it behaves like a fraction

[–] callyral@pawb.social 15 points 21 hours ago

clearly, d/dx simplifies to 1/x

[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago

If not fraction, why fraction shaped?

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 5 points 20 hours ago

Having studied physics myself I'm sure physicists know what a derivative looks like.

[–] shapis@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This very nice Romanian lady that taught me complex plane calculus made sure to emphasize that e^j*theta was just a notation.

Then proceeded to just use it as if it was actually eulers number to the j arg. And I still don’t understand why and under what cases I can’t just assume it’s the actual thing.

[–] carmo55@lemmy.zip 1 points 22 minutes ago

It is just a definition, but it's the only definition of the complex exponential function which is well behaved and is equal to the real variable function on the real line.

Also, every identity about analytical functions on the real line also holds for the respective complex function (excluding things that require ordering). They should have probably explained it.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 21 hours ago

Let's face it: Calculus notation is a mess. We have three different ways to notate a derivative, and they all suck.

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 23 hours ago

I've seen e^{d/dx}

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 10 points 1 day ago

Why does using it as a fraction work just fine then?

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 3 points 20 hours ago

I still don't know how I made it through those math curses at uni.

[–] chortle_tortle@mander.xyz 79 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (5 children)

Mathematicians will in one breath tell you they aren't fractions, then in the next tell you dz/dx = dz/dy * dy/dx

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

Have you seen a mathematician claim that? Because there's entire algebra they created just so it becomes a fraction.

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago

This is until you do multivariate functions. Then you get for f(x(t), y(t)) this: df/dt = df/dx * dx/dt + df/dy * dy/dt

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 19 points 1 day ago

Brah, chain rule & function composition.

[–] Koolio@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Also multiplying by dx in diffeqs

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

(d/dx)(x) = 1 = dx/dx

[–] moobythegoldensock@infosec.pub 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It was a fraction in Leibniz’s original notation.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

And it denotes an operation that gives you that fraction in operational algebra...

Instead of making it clear that d is an operator, not a value, and thus the entire thing becomes an operator, physicists keep claiming that there's no fraction involved. I guess they like confusing people.

[–] benignintervention@lemmy.world 78 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I found math in physics to have this really fun duality of "these are rigorous rules that must be followed" and "if we make a set of edge case assumptions, we can fit the square peg in the round hole"

Also I will always treat the derivative operator as a fraction

[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

I always chafed at that.

"Here are these rigid rules you must use and follow."

"How did we get these rules?"

"By ignoring others."

[–] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io 60 points 1 day ago (3 children)

2+2 = 5

…for sufficiently large values of 2

[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

Found the engineer

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 day ago

i was in a math class once where a physics major treated a particular variable as one because at csmic scale the value of the variable basically doesn't matter. the math professor both was and wasn't amused

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago (5 children)
[–] WR5@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I mean as an engineer, this should actually be 2+2=4 +/-1.

[–] umbraroze@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Computer science: 2+2=4 (for integers at least; try this with floating point numbers at your own peril, you absolute fool)

[–] callyral@pawb.social 3 points 21 hours ago

0.1 + 0.2 = 0.30000000000000004

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rudyharrelson@lemmy.radio 64 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Derivatives started making more sense to me after I started learning their practical applications in physics class. d/dx was too abstract when learning it in precalc, but once physics introduced d/dt (change with respect to time t), it made derivative formulas feel more intuitive, like "velocity is the change in position with respect to time, which the derivative of position" and "acceleration is the change in velocity with respect to time, which is the derivative of velocity"

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Possibly you just had to hear it more than once.

I learned it the other way around since my physics teacher was speedrunning the math sections to get to the fun physics stuff and I really got it after hearing it the second time in math class.

But yeah: it often helps to have practical examples and it doesn't get any more applicable to real life than d/dt.

[–] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 20 hours ago

I always needed practical examples, which is why it was helpful to learn physics alongside calculus my senior year in high school. Knowing where the physics equations came from was easier than just blindly memorizing the formulas.

The specific example of things clicking for me was understanding where the "1/2" came from in distance = 1/2 (acceleration)(time)^2 (the simpler case of initial velocity being 0).

And then later on, complex numbers didn't make any sense to me until phase angles in AC circuits showed me a practical application, and vector calculus didn't make sense to me until I had to actually work out practical applications of Maxwell's equations.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

Division is an operator

[–] vaionko@sopuli.xyz 40 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Except you can kinda treat it as a fraction when dealing with differential equations

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 day ago

Oh god this comment just gave me ptsd

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BoxOfFeet@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What is Phil Swift going to do with that chicken?

[–] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

The will repair it with flex seal of course

[–] BoxOfFeet@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago

To demonstrate the power of flex seal, I SAWED THIS CHICKEN IN HALF!

[–] corvus@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago

Chicken thinking: "Someone please explain this guy how we solve the Schroëdinger equation"

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Look it is so simple, it just acts on an uncountably infinite dimensional vector space of differentiable functions.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

fun fact: the vector space of differentiable functions (at least on compact domains) is actually of countable dimension.

still infinite though

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Doesn't BCT imply that infinite dimensional Banach spaces cannot have a countable basis

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Uhm, yeah, but there's two different definitions of basis iirc. And i'm using the analytical definition here; you're talking about the linear algebra definition.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 points 38 minutes ago* (last edited 37 minutes ago) (1 children)

So I call an infinite dimensional vector space of countable/uncountable dimensions if it has a countable and uncountable basis. What is the analytical definition? Or do you mean basis in the sense of topology?

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 22 minutes ago (1 children)

Uhm, i remember there's two definitions for basis.

The basis in linear algebra says that you can compose every vector v as a finite sum v = sum over i from 1 to N of a_i * v_i, where a_i are arbitrary coefficients

The basis in analysis says that you can compose every vector v as an infinite sum v = sum over i from 1 to infinity of a_i * v_i. So that makes a convergent series. It requires that a topology is defined on the vector space fist, so convergence becomes well-defined. We call such a vector space of countably infinite dimension if such a basis (v_1, v_2, ...) exists that every vector v can be represented as a convergent series.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 19 minutes ago

i just checked and there's official names for it:

  • the term Hamel basis refers to basis in linear algebra
  • the term Schauder basis is used to refer to the basis in analysis sense.
[–] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's not even a fraction, you can just cancel out the two "d"s

[–] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 34 points 1 day ago

"d"s nuts lmao

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

When a mathematician want to scare an physicist he only need to speak about ∞

[–] corvus@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

When a physicist want to impress a mathematician he explains how he tames infinities with renormalization.

load more comments
view more: next ›