2
$\begingroup$

I was asked to ID the following, but can't figure out what it's for. Laplace Transform of acceleration (x double-dot)?

Original EQ

(Sorry that I can't provide a sharper image - this is all I have access to)

I don't recognize the infinite sum, and there are some squiggles around the r in the denominator that I can't quite make out.

I tried to transcribe it, but since I'm not entirely sure what's going on in the denominator, I can't be certain it's accurate.

Transcribed

It seems odd to me to see a negative exponent in the denominator, and it's confusing using i as a counting variable.

Thanks in advance.

Context

There is none. This was sent to me by a friend, off of a "what is this" site. No known artist, location, date, etc.

Edit #1 - Additional Posting

Also posted in Physics, maybe something going on over there will spark a thought. Not much more (or any) insight beyond what's in this thread though.

Edit #2 - Re-done Equation with "knowns"

Based on some comments, and things not previously seen/added to original transcribed equation, I've got the following:

Re-done

The changes aren't substantial. The coefficient for the r' in the denominator has been proposed as being n, or 2. Additionally, having stared at this a bit longer, the two 2 exponents could also be sloppily-written thetas. Probably not.

All-in-all, it seems that this is most likely trolling.

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by Will Jagy, Yoav Kallus, RP_, Stefan Kohl, Gregory Arone Jul 6 '17 at 20:38

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question does not appear to be about research level mathematics within the scope defined in the help center." – Will Jagy, Yoav Kallus, RP_, Stefan Kohl, Gregory Arone
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ (1) There is a closed contour double integral with limits from infinity to phi in the original image. (2) But the integrand only has dx rather than a 2-form (3) What sort of maniac puts negative powers in the denominator? At this point the decoration on that input x seems about as meaningful as the umlaut over blue oyster cult's logo $\endgroup$ – Vidit Nanda Jul 6 '17 at 16:41
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @GeraldEdgar : Looks like "Janine" rather than "Jaime" to me. But I agree with Vidit that it looks like gibberish (though the acceleration symbol is one of the least nonsensical parts in my opinion). Note also that there seems to be an $n$ between the integral and the sum. $\endgroup$ – Timothy Chow Jul 6 '17 at 17:46
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ xkcd.com/356 $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Jul 6 '17 at 18:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Regarding Willie's post, is that a truck I hear? Gerhard "Thinks He'll Be Moving Along" Paseman, 2017.07.06. $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Jul 6 '17 at 18:41
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @StefanKohl --- reddit.com/r/whatisthisthing/comments/6lmcge/… $\endgroup$ – Carlo Beenakker Jul 6 '17 at 21:01
4
$\begingroup$

Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin

..................................

Context

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Quite a deep response. Perhaps MathOverflow's day's are numbered. $\endgroup$ – user78249 Jul 6 '17 at 20:55
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed. I expect a major change within less than a million days. Gerhard "I Don't Mean Global Warming" Paseman, 2017.07.06. $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Jul 6 '17 at 21:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 6 '17 at 22:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.