maththrowawtays

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by maththrowawtays 7y ago

   I believe in (some) American universities, any non-grad student who teaches a class is called a professor.
2. 2.▲
   by maththrowawtays 8y ago

   Here is a diagram demonstrating what I think OP is trying to say for why it is r^2 in 3 dimensions: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html In 2 dimensions it would be just ~r.
3. 3.▲
   by maththrowawtays 8y ago

   Firstly, you're going to run into walls if you try to fully understand why the mathematics of quantum mechanics are how they are. Physicists have been going at it for decades and from what I can tell the picture is not so clear yet. Wh
4. 4.▲
   by maththrowawtays 8y ago

   Many of the comments have pointed out this flaw in the argument. I will try to post my own summary of this flaw: The problem is that this case against quantum computing due to the sheer scale of the number of parameters is also a case again
5. 5.▲
   by maththrowawtays 8y ago

   You won't be able to find a countable union of sets of just one point which covers [0,1], so the third axiom you state is not violated. In fact, like the law says, if you take such a countable union, the measure of the set will be 0 (e