#contains math

[teaboot]

You've escaped containment. Found in a Buzzfeed list of lifehacks learned in 2023

[starbiology]

so i lost all my art from elementary but I do vaguely remember my neopets faerie oc and decided to draw her c:

DollPalace rainbow tail and all hahah

[anna-neko]

cosplay so old** ... it was shot ON FILM (during the last millennium no less), atta con that still exists at least **yes, the cosplayer is even a teen! Not quite the chara's age, but close enuff

[seekingxanadu]

I do not understand the meltdown certain sections of Dick Grayson fandom tends to ocassionally have about Dick getting angry. Characters get angry. Characters have the right to be angry. Now we aren't allowing Dick autonomy to feel? Here, I find myself thinking often- if there is a batfam character that deserves to get angry more often, it is Dick. His "father figures" take him for granted over and over and often abandon and ignore him and his traumas. His "siblings" rave and rant at him for every apparent slight but can't be bothered to ask for his side or even ask him "are you okay, Dick?" His "love" is gaslighting him, being toxic to him, but Dick should never ever snap back lest *her* stans accuse him of being toxic to her. Her toxicity towards him is just all right.

Saying Dick has anger issues when he has his rare blowups is, in itself, a form of gaslighting.

Even in fics, it is irritating to see fic authors take Dick to the brink and then have him apologise to others for *them* hurting him and then have him insist again and again he should be the one to apologise. It is plain disgusting.

Just like everyone else, Dick has a multitude of emotions.

Why do we find it okay for other characters to take their anger out at Dick, even for things he has not done?

Why do we find it okay for Dick to swallow his anger at other characters who hurt him, his family, or his hero mantles?

[scp049swifey]

I made this little doodle of the doctor in math class because I was bored

[doublel27]

Cher: Yei, you’re all sweaty. Get off. You’re gross. You smell. We just had sex. You can’t be ready for round x!

Cher who hasn’t been touched: Are you bored of me? Do I disgust you? Is there someone else? Who is he? I’m going to mother’s!

[worm-on-a-blog]

How many worms on strings must it take to fill a trench coat so they are able to buy a movie ticket?

spectacular question.

first we need to know the average volume of a standard worm. keeping in mind that a worm is generally less than a gram in weight, that volume could be really small if you sincerely compressed it—so for these measurements, we are assuming that none of our worms in the trench coat are compressed. we're not packing them in there like straw, they're all standing on each other's heads to puppet the trench coat.

assuming this, then, i divided up a single worm into eight segments that could each be approximated to be about the shape of a uniform cylinder, calculated the volume of each of those cylinders, and then added the total volume up. in all, our uncompressed worm came out to about 38.27 cm^3. diagram below:

(a string was used to take the circumference at the midpoint of each segment, and these were then used to calculate the diameter of each segment for the volume calculation.)

okay. we're going to say that the worms are occupying your average adult male-fit trench coat. they would be looking to fill about 80kg worth of space there, 80,000 cm^3. (1 kg = 1,000 cm^3 at human body density). but we need to subtract the legs, because they are most certainly going to have the trench coat drag on the ground. so:

one total leg would come out to about 13.488 kg of your body. double that, and we are subtracting 26.976 kg from our estimated weight. they also would not fill out the hands, so we're taking off a tiny bit more in the form of 1.04 kg. we're leaving the head in the calculation, because i presume they will be filling out an inconspicuous hat too.

put together, this gives us a volume of about 51,984 cm^3, or a final answer of 1,358.35 worms to fill a trench coat!

this also means that you're able to calculate how many worms you are total so long as you know how many kg you are. take your weight in kg, convert it to cm^3 by multiplying it by 1,000, and then divide that number by 38.27. all together, i am approximately 1,306.50 worms large.

[noelements-setempty]

"Yeah, my partner and I have a complex relationship." (I'm real and they're imaginary)

[bookshopsbizarreblog]

Did you know that you'd need to eat ~260,000 human teeth every second to fuel the Flux Capacitor?

Okay, so, the sources behind this beautiful statistic

As is stated a number of times by Doc Brown, the Flux Capacitor requires 1.21 gigawatts of power

According to a 2017 article by Science.org, eating all of someone's teeth would give an average of 36 calories [1]

The typical adult human will have 32 teeth, including their wisdom teeth. I don't know whether the 36 calorie statistic was taken with or without wisdom teeth, so I'm going to assume that it's with them. That way, we get a bigger number of teeth!

And the math!

Gigawatts are a bit frustrating to work with, because we can't just get a specific amount of teeth we'd need to eat to power it. Much like a 100 watt light bulb, that number is about how much energy it consumes every second of its operation, rather than a set quantity we need. And since it is stated that the time travel happens instantaneously (and looking at the frame-by-frame of the stop watches demonstrating the time travel shows that they are still synced, further showing this) [2], there is no time for the energy consumption to happen within. So whatever number of teeth it would take to fuel the Flux Capacitor via metabolic processes (assuming all of the calories a human would gain from digesting teeth are perfectly transferred into electrical energy and ignoring the energy cost associated with digesting the teeth in the first place) needs to be some rate of teeth / time.

So let's break it down unit conversion style

To turn that formula into plain English, we start by finding the energy each individual tooth has. If a set of them has 36 calories, and there are 32 in a set, then each tooth is 1.125 (36/32 -> 9/8) calories. By flipping that number, we are expressing that, for every calorie we wind up needing to run the flux capacitor, we will need 8/9ths of a tooth.

Next, we can convert the (food) calories into joules. They both measure the same thing--energy--and they're just different units for it. Similar to how feet and meters work. Joules are more useful for this formula, since joules and watts are easier to convert between, and the flux capacitor's energy requirements are measured in watts. Each calorie is 4184 joules, so we just convert between them.

Then we can covert the joules directly into watts! A joule is a watt second, meaning that something that consumes one watt of power for one second will have used a joule of energy. To use the example of the 100 watt lightbulb, if it was running for 1 second, it would use 100 joules. If it was running for 2 seconds, it would have used 200 joules. And so on.

(a watts * b seconds = a * b watt seconds = a * b joules)

Now that we've converted from calories to joules, and joules to watt seconds, we have:

The section on the right is splitting out the different aspects to make it slightly easier to understand. Essentially, this formula is saying that for every 4,707 watts of power we need, we must consume one tooth per second. That isn't a lot of teeth,,, yet. Unfortunately, 1.21 giga-watts is a lot of watts. 1.21 * 10^9 of them, to be precise. And after running that number through the calculator, we get a grand total of 257,064 teeth per second. But as we don't know the exact number of calories per teeth, it's safer to round up to ~260,000 teeth per second.

So, if Doc Brown built his DeLorean with the capacity to metabolize teeth at 100% efficiency, he would need to feed it around 260,000 of those enamelous little morsels every second to travel through time.

[1]

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV6wO_UVfWo

[confusedcanaries]

Numbers! most of them are just sort of there

0 - 10/10 number, very useful, helps proving uniqueness, nicely splits the number line, breaks division which is very fun, additive identity

1 - 7/10 number, kinda the default, multiplicative identity, the induction engine

2 - 9/10 number, for all your actually a number needs, root-s nicely, 2+2=2*2=2^2 (chef's kiss), the only even prime, binary is hella funky (just to be clear though, this whole post is written in base-(# months from January to October inclusive))

3 - 6/10 number, sorta ok I guess, triangles are cool but this isn't a triangle just a triangle number, the other useful root, prime

4 to 10 - 5/10 numbers, sort of on a par with 3 but I might need to start using a calculator and beginning to get same-y.

Notable exceptions: 6=1+2+3=1*2*3 and 7 is just cool

>10 - 3/10 numbers, nothing really stands out here, I will get some slight anxiety if you ask me to do adding or multiplication with these without a calculator, just use induction at this point, this is not the sort of maths I chose maths to do.

The numbers you need complicated power series to reach or are defined ito functions - 10/10 numbers, fantastically unhelpful, really cool because these might as well be infinity and my brain can't cope (For Example: graham's number, googol, Tree(3), 52!)

-1 - 0/10 number (more like hellspawn), to say this is a number and not an inherently evil sentient object is false, hides itself in a minus sign, its entire purpose is to cause sign errors and make real analysis harder

Fractions - 7/10 numbers, rational is the new sexy, much better than decimals, somehow still a countable set despite being thicc in the reals (I know the term is dense but it's 1:30 in the morning, cut me some slack)

Irrationals - 5*sqrt(2)/10 numbers, slightly cooler and more mysterious than fractions, knows the uncomputable and normal numbers but won't tell you their addresses as you're just not cool enough

Mathematical constants - 6/10 numbers, useful but kinda like 3 in that they're a little boring. Some Exciting Constants: φ, Euler's Constant (γ), lemniscate constant (ϖ). Fun fact: e has a really cool continued fraction representation

Infinity - 11/10 concepts, maybe numbers - maybe not, so cool they deserve an illogical rating, gotta love the ordinals, countability is soooooooooo freaking cool (check out cantor's diagonalisation proof), I'm counting infinitesimal numbers as well here, also, the convention for just calling infinity one number for the complex numbers is hecking amazing

i - 7/10 number - very cool, philosophically taxing, the incredible original to the quaternions' disappointing sequel (maybe I'll change my mind when i actually learn about quaternions), geometry and rotation are now part of numbers! , makes differentiation so much more awesome

[evillandscaper]

Drew this a while ago!!! I'm gonna make a series where I design & imagine our protags in the future, grown up and in society.

Part one is our girl OLIVE!!!! drawing her as a math teacher in hopes of manifesting a good math teacher irl . Next will be Otto!!!

also i finally came to terms with the fact that olive's hair is brown and not black. not taking it well

[dees-dishwasher]

PEARL DUMP!! a bunch of (semi-recent) sketches of pearl!! :D

[silverware-is-interesting]

some painfully inaccurate art of wagyu I did instead of paying attention in English the other day

so. in my defense, I refused to use a reference, and was drawing in jspaint. it was also like 9:30am, but y'know. not that bad.

anyway. behold . the. not beauty of this ugly fucking thing. I draw beautiful things in school.

[deadpanwalking]

in a similar vein as the other anon-- you're the smartest and funniest motherfucker on my dash. every day i'm staggered by your generosity of spirit and your integrity

[parentheses-posts]

How do you feel about math equations that use an obscene, sometimes unnecessary amount of brackets e.g. {ln[sin(x²+3x-9)]+1}/7?

I have so far not found a case in which the amount of brackets in an equation has been "unnecessary". I do, however, imagine that it is possible to encounter one, perhaps it could be simplified in such a way that less would be used in its most compact form.

In the case of this example equation, I don't see a method to simplify it in such a way, though mathematics was not the branch of magic I focused, my knowledge is extremely limited in this field. I know that they play a part likely more often in mathematical abilities than grammatical, but my expertise and study was based in grammar, then specialized here.

This ask has 1 set of parentheses, 1 set of brackets, and 1 set of curly brackets.

[misspickman]

Its so funny how desperately people want t/mkon to fit the nerd/jock trope in that order specifically when its not true for either of them. Failed on both accounts