EPTDay[9].tv Daily - Page 643
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
dmans
Sweden358 Posts
| ||
|
deadjon
United States83 Posts
| ||
|
Deckkie
Netherlands1595 Posts
| ||
|
enemy2010
Germany1972 Posts
On October 21 2010 03:58 MrSexington wrote: Besides the ending of the last game, I thought the funniest moment was: --- "And he begins pumping out immortals for anti-air to counter all the mutas." [flip to Day9 cam] *pause* *awkward sideways glance* [flip back] ---- Anyway, I enjoyed the selection of games.  Yeah :D :D :D I laughed SO loud when he did that! :D :D | ||
|
Alyzar
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
Day[9]
United States7366 Posts
Funday Mondays on Tuesday are the best teheheh ^_^_^_^ | ||
|
r3clay
Netherlands137 Posts
i feel a new shirt on thehandsomenerd comming with this text soon | ||
|
ghostsquall
United States187 Posts
| ||
|
Shamrock
Argentina1 Post
| ||
|
Jocoma
Denmark100 Posts
 | ||
|
Robstickle
Great Britain406 Posts
Best bit imo On October 21 2010 00:20 DoubleReed wrote: To those asking about the square root of -1, if you know anything about the Quaternions of mathematics, you know that the square root of -1 can be three different square roots represented by i, j, and k. And those square roots are what engineers and people use for vector calculus because they have the anti-symmetric property of i * j = k, and j * i = -k. Where ai + bj + ck is a vector in 3D space. This means when you describe the force of a magnetic field that moves perpendicular or whatever, you can describe it using the inner product <B, u> really easy because of the properties of this field. In the Quaternions you also have a real component, so it's r + ai + bj + ck, and it has some strange field properties. So yes 'i' is the square root of -1. So is 'j' and so is 'k', but none of them are equal. Weird, but true. Usually you just use Complex Numbers where you use 'i' and nothing else. 'j' and 'k' are only for quaternion mathematics. THE MORE YOU KNOW! Why stop at three dimensions? Can't you take it a step further and have n dimensions? | ||
|
Jutranjo
Slovenia140 Posts
Edit: @Robstickle, the three numbers just happen to align with 3 dimensions of space, they were thought to be the new shit for working vector fields before vectors became hip. Try it with N=2 and you'll see it just does not work. The math and the usual properties you'd expect. Higher up might work but noone sees any point in it to research it further. | ||
|
mauldin09
2 Posts
| ||
|
mauldin09
2 Posts
| ||
|
Scoop
Finland482 Posts
| ||
|
ciaNo
Italy123 Posts
| ||
|
Ryalnos
United States1946 Posts
On October 21 2010 05:33 Robstickle wrote: Dum de dum de dum *flips back to everyone cam* CARNAGE *and back again* dum de dum de dum Best bit imo Why stop at three dimensions? Can't you take it a step further and have n dimensions? They've taken it further to octonions, but it gets uglier as you go along. You have to give up key axioms to go from Real -> Complex -> Quaternions -> Octonions. You already lose commutativity (so a*b does not equal b*a) for quaternions, and then you lose associativity with octonions, so a*(b*c) does not equal (a*b)*c. | ||
|
cfogle
United States2 Posts
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/tNJ2a.jpg) | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
| ||
|
Glasse
Canada1237 Posts
On October 21 2010 06:21 Lysenko wrote: BTW, "mt" is a WoW-ism. Short for "mistell," which means "I typed this in the wrong channel. that did not start in wow... | ||
| ||
