someone nuked pixel’s thread, but i had to share with his sorry a$$ that A+A=0 <=> A=0 is obviously false in rings of integers, for instance ring of integers modulo 6 has the elements {0,1,2,3,4,5} and 3+3=0 (mod 6), basic abstract algebra on which pure mathematician clowns can expand also, pixel and edgeraz are jokes, QED proved above.
How does this give me more money?
it gives you less
what about CFA + MBA > 1.5*CFA + work experience
We all know that MBA >>> CFA But more people here are taking the CFA than MBA, so you guys are all grouping together and saying the same thing.
Mobius Striptease Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > someone nuked pixel’s thread, but i had to share > with his sorry a$$ that A+A=0 <=> A=0 is > obviously false in rings of integers, for instance > ring of integers modulo 6 has the elements > {0,1,2,3,4,5} and 3+3=0 (mod 6), basic abstract > algebra on which pure mathematician clowns can > expand > > also, pixel and edgeraz are jokes, QED proved > above. haha man u guys are the wickedest internet gangstas…
Mobius Striptease Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > someone nuked pixel’s thread, but i had to share > with his sorry a$$ that A+A=0 <=> A=0 is > obviously false in rings of integers, for instance > ring of integers modulo 6 has the elements > {0,1,2,3,4,5} and 3+3=0 (mod 6), basic abstract > algebra on which pure mathematician clowns can > expand I assume that the question was based for general audience on this forum who don’t know about rings/groups. The equality is true for real numbers, integers and ring of integers with addition defined as what we know it to be (2+3 =5), it has 0 as additive identity and 1 as mutliplicative identity. Dude name calling is uncalled for, but you can seriously be my b!tch if you want to.
math gangsters, just chill.
they had fights like this when someone busted out illegal dice playing dungeons and dragons
Mobius Striptease Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > someone nuked pixel’s thread, but i had to share > with his sorry a$$ that A+A=0 <=> A=0 is > obviously false in rings of integers, for instance > ring of integers modulo 6 has the elements > {0,1,2,3,4,5} and 3+3=0 (mod 6), basic abstract > algebra on which pure mathematician clowns can > expand > > also, pixel and edgeraz are jokes, QED proved > above. looks like you are a joke too. 
edgeraz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I assume that the question was based for general > audience on this forum who don’t know about > rings/groups. The equality is true for real > numbers, integers and ring of integers with > addition defined as what we know it to be (2+3 > =5), it has 0 as additive identity and 1 as > mutliplicative identity. > > Dude name calling is uncalled for, but you can > seriously be my b!tch if you want to. the question was ill-defined because it was stated in a most general form, whcih I just showed it was false. the purpose was to whoop pixel’s a$$ for his obnoxious behavior. either way, the question wasn’t posed as a fun conundrum for the forum, but as a diss on people studying for the CFA which has been pixel’s agenda for a while. he is a quant-wanna-be joke you, on the other hand, initiated the name calling in another thread in which i shared my opnion on the subject of math vs stats degrees. now i can whoop your a$$ around on the forum anytime if that’s what you’re looking for, but it’s in the spirit of good fun and i dont have any hard feelings so no big deal. ask sublimity, i whoop him regularly in all good humor
storko Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > they had fights like this when someone busted out > illegal dice playing dungeons and dragons haha ok dawg
Mobius Striptease Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edgeraz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > I assume that the question was based for > general > > audience on this forum who don’t know about > > rings/groups. The equality is true for real > > numbers, integers and ring of integers with > > addition defined as what we know it to be (2+3 > > =5), it has 0 as additive identity and 1 as > > mutliplicative identity. > > > > Dude name calling is uncalled for, but you can > > seriously be my b!tch if you want to. > > the question was ill-defined because it was stated > in a most general form, whcih I just showed it was > false. the purpose was to whoop pixel’s a$$ for > his obnoxious behavior. either way, the question > wasn’t posed as a fun conundrum for the forum, but > as a diss on people studying for the CFA which has > been pixel’s agenda for a while. he is a > quant-wanna-be joke > you, on the other hand, initiated the name calling > in another thread in which i shared my opnion on > the subject of math vs stats degrees. now i can > whoop your a$$ around on the forum anytime if > that’s what you’re looking for, but it’s in the > spirit of good fun and i dont have any hard > feelings so no big deal. ask sublimity, i whoop > him regularly in all good humor yo son im down for a drive by on these mark ass bustas…
Mobius Striptease Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the question was ill-defined because it was stated > in a most general form, whcih I just showed it was > false. the purpose was to whoop pixel’s a$$ for > his obnoxious behavior. either way, the question > wasn’t posed as a fun conundrum for the forum, but > as a diss on people studying for the CFA which has > been pixel’s agenda for a while. he is a > quant-wanna-be joke I was right about you the first time, you are a “small-d!ck” head. Secondly question wasn’t complicated you made it so by including “non -trivial” assumptions, and why should you consider anything coming from any one as an insult. That just shows how insecure you are. I think it was kinda fun, but I don’t support the theory that Mathematicians are superior, everyone excels in their different fields and that is why this world is so colorful.
edgeraz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > I was right about you the first time, you are a > “small-d!ck” head. > Secondly question wasn’t complicated you made it > so by including “non -trivial” assumptions, and > why should you consider anything coming from any > one as an insult. That just shows how insecure you > are. > I think it was kinda fun, but I don’t support the > theory that Mathematicians are superior, everyone > excels in their different fields and that is why > this world is so colorful. i’m not easily insulted by anyone especially on some forum. insecurities? i made a joke about how pure mathematicians study “general abstract nonsense”, a colloquial term for category theory, and you jump at me with this out of nowehere: “Clearly you guys have no F**king idea what you are talking about, once you are in grad school its the same, the distinction remains only for illiterate bunch of morons who quit the subject before undergrad. Its a shame that you even have ‘Mobius Strip’ in your screen name when you don’t even know that Topology(a fundamental branch of Mathematics) has at least 50 books written on it.” haha you need to chill brah. if you are stepping up to a nerd battle pure vs. applied math, you need to bring your A-game cause i’ma drop it raw and hardcore, thats how we applied mathematicians roll. in my hood (the real world), pure mathematicians ain’t sh!t
im betting the house on my boy Mobius on this one.
I_Passed_Level_1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > im betting the house on my boy Mobius on this one. thought the bank took that away…
Mobius Striptease Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i’m not easily insulted by anyone especially on > some forum. insecurities? hahaha 
, you made my day. Wow, you cry on every topic. And somehow everything is offensive to you. And yes there is no distinction b/w pure and applied at the PhD level.
I love this site.
edgeraz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mobius Striptease Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > i’m not easily insulted by anyone especially on > > some forum. insecurities? > > hahaha , you made my day. > Wow, you cry on every topic. And somehow > everything is offensive to you. > And yes there is no distinction b/w pure and > applied at the PhD level. who the hell cares if theres a distinction or not. irrelevant, just like most of pure math. i make a random diss on pure mathematicians, and you jump out of a corner and cry me a river about 50 books on topology, then call ME insecure? take the applied heat or get PWNED