OT @lionjim vs @irishherb...and maybe a few others...

[s1uggo72]

 

[LionJim]

I’m not that good a lipreader. Edit: found the captions.

It’s actually pretty funny. Mike Boyle (a prof at Maryland) to me: “You’re waving your hands.”

 

[BobPSU92]

I don’t get it.

 

[LionJim]

Fwiw, Lebesque Integration is more general than Riemann Integration (if a function is Riemann Integrable, then it is Lebesque Integrable, and you’ll get the same answer). It’s a really very clever, commonsensical generalization, “of course, why didn’t I think of that?” Very cool stuff, although I’m not sure why a physicist would need to know it. (Riemann works fine in physics, is what I’ve thought.)

 

[PSU87]

Fwiw, Lebesque Integration is more general than Riemann Integration (if a function is Riemann Integrable, then it is Lebesque Integrable, and you’ll get the same answer). It’s a really very clever, commonsensical generalization, “of course, why didn’t I think of that?” Very cool stuff, although I’m not sure why a physicist would need to know it. (Riemann works fine in physics, is what I’ve thought.)

These types of things are always humbling to me. As an engineer, I consider myself "good at math." And next to the average business, history or lit major, I probably am.

Then I realize, compared to folks like you...not so much. Thanks for help keeping my ego in check.

 

[Woodpecker]

Fwiw, Lebesque Integration is more general than Riemann Integration (if a function is Riemann Integrable, then it is Lebesque Integrable, and you’ll get the same answer). It’s a really very clever, commonsensical generalization, “of course, why didn’t I think of that?” Very cool stuff, although I’m not sure why a physicist would need to know it. (Riemann works fine in physics, is what I’ve thought.)