Trump 2nd term prediction thread

You may be right. oh well

By the way, I assumed you knew what it was and were joking, but I see now that when you google that function all the results are about how it has no elementary antiiderivative, which is true, but more relevant is that it is the function that defines the normal distribution, before you add in a bunch of constants to normalise the area under it to 1 and move the mean to the mean of the data set. It's the function of the bell curve. (Still not sure if you knew that or not, wasn't clear from your comment, so FYI just in case).

Here you go chez, another one of your frustrated, lost souls.

Bro they're the same thing. -5^2 = -25. -(5^2) = -25. You're thinking of (-x)^2 : (-5)^2 = 25.

this is the prediction threads please stay on topic and reduce the number of troll posts

Yes boss. Sorry boss.

-5^2 is 25 ffs, minus is applied before elevation (or does that change Italy vs england?)

I deleted because you wrote differently that I had read with parenthesis, but -5^2 is 25 lol

I'm pretty sure it's not, the exponentiation operator takes precedence over the negation operator. Let me try it in Excel.

google says -5^2 is -25 ... I have to rethink my life

?

Ok, Excel agrees with you. I mean, I'll admit you're right, but seems dumb that that's how it works.

apparently in simple txt terms it is like he says.

we would space it appropriately in real life to avoid ambiguity like - [ empty space ] 5 with small 2 exponential is - 25, -5 very close and exponential is 25

lol google agrees with you

If you look at what it actually calculates though, it adds parentheses. Radical leftist autocomplete/autocorrect feature they built in.

Anyway, if you know that's the function of the Gaussian, I'm sure you knew what I meant, parentheses or not.

automation isn't radically leftist as it removes the crucial human input and it alienates workers

If you hand wrote -5 superscript 2 on a piece of paper, I'd evaluate it to -25. I think. I thought. Now I'm doubting myself.

Anyway, I should have been more careful with the parentheses, no arguments there. I often add in extra parentheses where not strictly necessary when I'm coding for exactly this reason.

I always though negative took precedence over indices. Minus doesn't.

Although this may be a place where grammer matters.

I mean, if I wrote 0-5^2, you'd evaluate that to -25, right? The presence of the 0 shouldn't really change anything, right?

Just tried it in Excel. "-5^2" evaluates to 25. "0-5^2" evaluates to -25, further confusing the audience.

ye like 9 +. -5^2

is unambiguously 9+25

like if you "solve for x = -5"

9+X^2 + x

you would substitute in writing by hand 9 + -5^2 + -5 ->

9 + 25 -5 = 29

not 9 + (-5)^2 + (-5) , not by hand at least, not in Italy when I went to high school or college

that's because 0 - something with no parenthesis is a subtraction, while -5^2 alone is a negative number elevated at the power of 2

Yes I'd say there's a difference between minus and negation.

This is how the Guassian is usually presented (if you do a search on google images for e^-x^2 you will see this for yourself):

This comports with what I'm saying. By your guys' interpretation, that integral diverges, and pretty ****ing quickly at that.