this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
11 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

17736 readers
2365 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SmartmanApps@programming.dev 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Lmao citing yourself

Nope! I cite Maths textbooks here, here, here, here, here, here, here, a calculator here, need I go on? 🙄 There's plenty more of them

assuming you’re correct and smarter than everyone who programs solvers,

That's hilarious that you think random programmers know more about Maths than a Maths professional 😂

even those who are known to be respectable and used extensively in academia

As I already stated, everyone knows the complete opposite of that about them. It's hilarious that you're trying to prop up places that give both right and wrong answers to the exact same expression as somehow being "respectable". 😂 And you'll see at the end of that thread - if you decide to read it this time - the poof that academia does not use it (because they know it spits out random answers)

Nothing’s been established cause you’ve cited sources that don’t support your argument

BWAHAHAHAAH! Like?? 😂

repeating them again and again won’t make it different.

That's right, the Maths textbooks are still as correct about it as the first time I cited them.

continuing this is useless

Well it is when you don't bother reading the links, which you've just proven is the case

[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

I've read everything you've posted, but the problem is you're interpreting the texts in such a way that they support your flawed argument, conveniently ignoring what they're actually saying, such as "if" statements.

Even this textbook that you yourself posted goes against what you're saying if you just bother to look at it outside of your tunnel vision:

Notice something?