What's the formula you've seen the most in your life?

The one you've seen many times in school or at work. For me it's picrel.

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Same but I've never worked a day in my life and I only learned high school math. I'm 24 yrs old, degreeless. Considering my job prospects (supermarket clerk/backbreaking labor) will I ever need to use this formula again?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Same. I have been denied a career, relationships (both romantic and platonic), opportunities, hobbies and interests and even family bonds.
      Being acoustic and neglected at the same time is a lethal combo. I learned the hard way that in order to pursue careers and degrees you need a lot of support and not just monetary but also emotional and moral too; I didn't get either. My last wish is to one day provide at least the latter to my future kids.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Though I have used the quadratic formula myself countless times, I actually only literally saw it enough times to memorize it. That includes the time when I was a mathematics tutor as well.
    I think that, overall, due to their mainstream popularity, E=mc^2 or the Pythagoras Theorem formulas might be the ones I have seen the most in my five decades of existence.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    u = R*i and U = Z*I

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I never use this formula, just complete the squares instead

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's the same thing with more steps

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        When I was young I refused to memorize OP pic and instead used
        [math]displaystyle x = -frac{b}{2a} pm sqrt{left( frac{b}{2a} right)^2 - frac{c}{a}}[/math]
        which is what you get from completing the square directly, without any attempt to rationalize the denominator.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >which is what you get from completing the square directly, without any attempt to rationalize the denominator

          Yes, as I said it's the same thing with more steps. You do the stages separately and then potentially have to rationalise the denominator at the end. You're simply remembering a process rather than an explicit formula.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is a difference between remember a process you understand and can justify and simply outright memorizing a formula which is how most students approach the quadratic formula. If your suggestion is to derive the formula once and then remember it, that is satisfactory, but not something most students are going to do.

            As far as
            >have to rationalise the denominator
            this is a useful skill in certain contexts (especially when the denominator is a binomial), but is heavily overused in schools, not for the benefit of the students or their education, but in order to force answers into a standard form to make grading easier. Rebelling against such nonsense should be encouraged.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Rationalising the denominator is useful if you have to do further calculations with your answers to the quadratic equation. For example, a student may intuitively be able to calculate [math] frac{9 + sqrt{6}}{15} + frac{7 sqrt{5}}{5} [/math] using their knowledge of how to add rational numbers, whereas [math] frac{5}{9 - sqrt{6}} + frac{7}{sqrt{5}} [/math] looks much less approachable. If you're going to need to rationalise the denominator anyway to add/subtract your fractions, it's good to get into the habit of doing it as standard.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If you're going to need to rationalise the denominator anyway to add/subtract your fractions

            *2bh I didn't really mean "need" here, as you could of course just cross-multiply and accept that you'll have irrationals in both the numerator and the denominator. It's more that rationalising the denominators makes the whole calculation a lot neater.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are confusing calculating a value with simplifying an expression, and not even choosing a good example of simplification. (Next time try [math]tan(75^circ)[/math].) Yes, rationalizing the denominator is useful sometimes. No, putting things into "standard forms" as a matter of unthinking habit is not good.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >putting things into "standard forms" as a matter of unthinking habit is not good.
            I think that anon's point was that rationalizing the denominator puts surds into a consistent form which is much easier for students (and anyone else actually) to recognize; which helps with learning how to perform calculations using them. It also makes it far easier to identify equivalent irrational expressions.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/DyWUgPe.png

          https://i.imgur.com/RIofc5h.gif

          How to remember them all? Like without any card formulas

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            same way you learn anything. You do enough problems that anytime you shut your eyes you can see the burnt impring of these formulas on your eyelids.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Understand what all the pieces mean and why they are all there.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I know but my brain enjoys doing that over punting the formula in my calculator

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    f=ma

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    cos^2(x) + sin^2(x) = 1 and pretty much any equivalent trig identity.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pythagorean theorem easily, not only is it arguably one of the most famous math results but it also is just so incredibly useful in almost every area of math and science imaginable

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    rate times time

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Verification not required.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >tfw this is probably not even particularly difficult but looks so intimidating to me I would never try to learn it

      being beaten by getting multiplication tables wrong as a kid was not fun

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's just a normal curve function lol. 80% of statistics uses it and I don't even bother writing it out since Excel has simple functions for it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      good, now integrate that from -inf to x

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      3blue1Black person has a cool video about how this crazy looking one got derived

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    E=mc^2

    Normies use it as the canonical "math formula" everywhere.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    for me, it's the gradient of the loglikelihood

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Extremely useful, should be taught to elementary school children, but sadly very few people understand it.
    Heres a nice video that briefly explains ideal gas law

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      good video

      • 3 weeks ago
        Oldfag

        Mouf, now

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How the frick has nobody said the area of a triangle or rectangle or circle?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How often do you need to calculate the areas of circles?

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is there any intuitive logic for solving third degree equations, beyond just following some algebra? Something akin to completing the square
    With a quadratic equation you can try to find some unique shift that would make the roots symmetrical (say, as opposites, or perhaps as complex conjugates), and then the equation is turned into a linear equation. How is this to be done for a third degree?
    Dont just post the formula, which is over 500 years old, not the point

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    0+1=1, 1+1=2, 2-1=1, and 1-1=0. All of mathematics can literally be reduced to these four equations.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    2+2=4

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    as a chemist

    n [mol] = m [g] / MM [g/mol]

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *