This Cursed Video will raise your Uncomfortability Levels by brrrrrrrr%

Help me create more free content! =)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wanna send me some stuff? lel:

Postfach 11 15
06731 Bitterfeld-Wolfen
Saxony-Anhalt
Germany
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[pythagorasaurusrex]

Mathematicians: Laughing tears
Non-mathematicians: Scratching their head.

[northernskies]

Textbooks be like:
"Using this result, obviously, we can derive a theory for quantum gravity, but that is left as an exercise for the reader."

[janus]

Something my classmate wrote on a test:
n∈ℝ

And my Teacher said I was the one "trying to cause confusion" by putting -c at the end of my Integaral

[integralboi]

I hate when textbooks say trivially or obviously, like “
1+1=2, thus one can trivially verify whether the abc conjecture holds.”

[deffdefying]

Me, a non-mathematician: Ah yes. This is, as they say. Cursed

[matron]

Finally, the quality content I’ve been waiting for.

[rentristandelacruz]

When you're following a proof in a textbook and see a "Obviously" or "It directly follows..." but you don't understand what's happening, "Bitch how?!".

[dabossbabie]

Normal People: This seems like hell.
Math People: This is hell.

I lasted until "Let ε < 0". That's too much to handle.

[kanyonful]

they should make this video the final assignment for graduating with a math degree. if the person does not die before the video ends, they do not get a degree

[ricardoparada]

I might actually use some of the ones that are technically correct just to mess with my profs lmao

[HAL-ojjb]

The thumbnail looks straight out of my master thesis lol

[PackSciences]

At 0:36, one can see a scatterplot with a high dispersion and its linear regression.
The principal eigenjoke is that you are not supposed to to a linear regression with such a high variance. In reality, no matter if the dispersion appears high or not, you need actual criterion to decide if your linear regression is pertinent. The usual R² for the 1-dimensional case, but also R²_adjusted = 1 - |1-R²| |(p-1)/(p-(1+n))| if you have p samples with n dimensions of regression, and finally the LOO-cross-validated R² called Q² = 1- (sum (y_k -yhat_k, -k)²/sum (y_k - mean(y)) with y_k your samples, yhat_k the regression value yreg(x_k) and yhat_k, -k the regression minus the k-th value (this is the Leave-One-Out technique). Anyway, here R² is clearly below 0.8 by the fundamental theorem of engineering. R²_adj is just R² because it is a 1D regression, and Q² probably skyrockets. Hence, we can conclude this joke has indeed a theoretical base.
The second eigenjoke, which most viewers don't converge too (on average, the algorithm to find the eigenjoke on the said frame will converge to the first one, not the second one), is that the plot is centered around (69, 130), and 69 is a famously known double-digit number to provoque hilariousness among youngsters due to the fact that it references a sexual position.

[PhotonAvogadro]

0:03 I was first like “No that’s incorrect!”
And I thought for a second and realized that it’s perfectly correct

[Manuel-pdkf]

0:18
I tried using this on an exam. My instructor did not like it.

[Juan_Carls]

Omg I actually have a vector mechanics class where for rotational motion the book uses u for 1/radius and u for angle, then it writes abominations like d^2u/du^2

[shachino]

0:40 finally a cursed image I can understand

[dumpmuch]

0:38 Me to my lab partner: Don’t worry, I’ll just change some values when the teacher isn’t watching

[shayanmoosavi]

1:10 don't you DARE!!!
1:13 THAT'S IT. YOU CROSSED THE LINE!!!

[dfcho]

Most of these are neat, but that transpose joke is actually funny