Dig this tattoo. Want to get one something like it. Wondering what all the formulae (formulas?) are. Can anyone decipher what these various molecules and vectors and such are?
I can’t say about the molecule, but the equations and various shapes seem to have been chosen because they look cool. None of them have any particular meaning.
Yea, I don’t think the equations mean anything.
Here’s a pretty impressive collection of Science tatoos if your looking for future inspiration.
It’s pretty obvious whoever came up with the tattoo doesn’t actually know any math, but tried to make it look like they did.
There’s nothing there that’s more complicated than “1+1=2” and “x = 5”.
Pretty stupid.
Actually, you can solve the three equations for “t”. I don’t think it comes out to any obviously significant number though. Maybe an inside joke for the person whose tatoo it is.
Well good…glad it doesn’t mean anything to anyone else either. (Except maybe him, of course.) Wicked link, Simplicio. Many thanks!
The molecules are mostly nonsense, too.
At the right of the large organic molecule, there is a OH-OH bond. This is nonsense. HO-OH would be hydrogen peroxide. This wouldn’t have an extra bond to connect to the rest of the organic structure. I looked around a bit for the 5-member ring on the left, I couldn’t find anything recognized (NIST)
The two six-sided figures in red (upper left) could be interpreted as cyclohexane, I suppose. This is a significant for organic chemistry, but given the gibberish molecule on the right I’m not inclined to believe it.
I think the tattoo is either meant to be a fun interpretation of an undergrad’s notebook or a simply ignorant pastiche of what math and orgo look like.
Yeah, the weird z-looking things look a lot like the standard representation of the “chair” conformation of cyclohexane. The four-carbon molecule would be some kind of (delta)-butyrolactone, but as gamehat said the OH-OH-C bond wouldn’t really work IRL. I tried to look up the chemical without the OH-OH group, but I’m a bit rusty on my IUPAC naming conventions (which is a shame, those were always my favorite questions on Ochem exams back in the day…).
You say you’re thinking of getting a tattoo similar to this. Just my two cents, but I would recommend against getting a science-y or mathy tattoo unless you could explain in detail exactly what it is. Otherwise you’ll risk looking like a serious poseur when when you encounter someone who can. On the other hand, I’d also recommend you get the tattoo you want regardless of what random strangers on a message board (me) say 
Are these tattoos permanent (the one in the OP’s link but also those in the collection shown in Simplicio’s)? I am declaring my total ignorance of this area by asking, so please don’t laugh if you think the answer should be obvious.
In recent years, I have just assumed that the profusion of tattoos you see is because, although usually of high quality, they’re not permanent like they used to be (when I was young, permanent tattoos were uncommon and confined to the “riff raff”). So, I assume that nowadays, it’s not like you’re doomed forever if you make a bad choice. Am I totally off-base? (and remember, no laughing).
Thanks!
Tattoos have the same basic principle they’ve always had; stick ink under skin. So in that sense, they’re just as permanent as ever. Better techniques, technologies, and inks have made higher quality tattoos more common.
Tattoo removal is also more common now, although it’s still not 100% perfect. The standard method is laser removal, which gives the best final results, but is still slow, painful, expensive, and can leave permanent marks anyway.
“Temporary tattoos” that don’t involve actually permanently marking the skin are usually called body art rather than tattoos, in my experience. Henna is the most ubiquitous example, I think.
Was this an Easter egg from Lost?
I agree, it’s nonsense. The pac-man guy at the bottom is a clue.
That’s good advice, wheresmymind and I do intend to follow it. The only thing I want to take from it is the Rubik’s Cube design, though surrounding it with other stuff. I would love to get a Mandelbrot set tattoo, but that would be kinda stupid in my mind, given the inherent complexity of it. I suspect I’ll simply use the formula for the set instead.
I intend to be able to explain everything I end up using! I’m trying to figure out what this is, as I think it’s pretty cool looking. Also considering adding a Morin surface to the mix, since they’re pretty slick looking. I’m nothing even close to a mathematician, but sure can appreciate the beauty of the stuff!
KarlGauss, I think the prevalence of tattoos these days is the social acceptance. They are still primarily permanent tattoos that you’d be seeing (though somewhat reversible with laser treatment, as mentioned). At my age (41), I’m satisfied that the choice I’m making on getting my first tattoo is something I’m prepared to live with for the rest of my life.
Eh, technically, no, you can’t. At least by standard nomenclature.
X(t) and X’(t) are functions, not variables. “t” is the variable, and as a variable - well, there’s no “solution”. It’s been a few years since I took calculus but IIRC X’(t) would be read as the derivative of X(t)
Meaning - you input a “t”, then the function “X” or “X’ (X prime)” spits out an X.
If you’d like to see a few (!!) permanent notso-hotso tattoos, check out http://wtftattoos.com/. The latest crop are a bit mild compared to what you’ll find if you go far enough back into the [next page>>] links.
Looking at that and their other affiliated sites, my opinion of my fellow Americans just keeps plummeting. We are truly doomed. 
I don’t think that is meant to be an OH-OH bond. I think it is much more likely that the structure is written according to the convention that there is a carbon atom at each angle, and that, unless marked otherwise, there are hydrogens filling any “spare” bonds on the carbon atoms. I that is a fairly standard, shorthand way of representing organic molecular structures, sufficient for many purposes. The OHs are simply alcohol groups attached to the carbon backbone.
So far as I can see, there is no reason why such a molecule could not exist. I do not know specifically what it is though, and I would not be surprised if it is just a randomly drawn molecule of no particular chemical (or pharmaceutical, or whatever) interest.
I would recommend people do not click that link. There appears to be malware on that page. Openingit caused the download of two little PDF files. (As I do not have PDFs set to open automatically, but to download to the desktop instead, I do not think I actually got infected.)
I don’t know, worked normally for me. No downloads, no malware.
I did not imagine that those files downloaded. For the reasons I mentioned, on my system PDFs download to the desktop instead of letting Acrobat try to read them. If you visited the page but did not see them download, I would think that is not at all a good sign.
I am just trying to give people a friendly warning here. The fact that you did not notice that you got infected is not a sign that you didn’t; it may well be a sign that the infection took hold as its authors intended.
The X’ equation is a (very easy) differential equation, which you can solve for the funtion X(t). Then you can plug that equation for X(t) into the second one and solve for t. Then finally you can take the value you got for t and plug it into the third equation to get some number.
I started to do it, but then stopped when it became obvious it wasn’t going to be anything meaningful.
Most of what you’re seeing are probably genuine, permanent tattoos. There are some “temporary tattoos” that are a very thin film of flexible plastic with an image on it. You may see these in the drug store or in those coin operated vending machines at the exit of many stores. To apply them, you place the plastic on your skin and then press it with a wet washcloth. The water transfers the image onto the skin. At a distance, they look very “real”, but up close you can see the barest hint of plastic sheeting. They stay on for about a week, and can be removed with rubbing alcohol or baby oil (or, if you’re a parent, baby wipes.)
So if you see a small child with a “tattoo”, or someone dressed up for a special occasion, it may indeed be a temporary tattoo. But the vast majority of tatts I see just going about my day are the real deal, and only removable with surgery. They’re just more socially acceptable for people who aren’t “riff-raff” these days. Fashions change.
Tattoos - they’re not just for drunken sailors anymore! 