Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 478. page

if anything we should be making more species extinct, like mosquitos, pitbulls and brazilians

we should attempt it. while also preserving samples of endangered species.

if we can bring back the Dodo, or a Mammoth. then we can bring back anything else we have viable dna samples of..

Sounds like a lot of fun. We should definitely do it.

>>8949749
>non binding deal
>china allowed to increase emmisions until 2030
I'm wondering how could anyone be retarded enough to shill for this shitty deal.

File: AFP_Infographic_Cop21.jpg (126KB, 959x983px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 959x983px

>>8949759

Paris is garbage. It basically punishes the West. While letting China and the undeveloped world to continue polluting. Also wants the West to pay billions and billions to the developing world. So they can skip carbon energy.

It would just make industry in China, SEAsia, India, Africa, and latin america more competitive. While the West is handicapped with exepensive energy and having to subsidize countries that are taking manufacturing and commodity production away.

I like popsci, it gives me something to talk about with brainlets.

Matt Parker is the only cool numberphile guy, the rest aren't even cool.

>>8947399
What, you don't think Hannah Fry and her book The Maths of Love are cool?

>>8945557
Lua >>> Python

>literally whomstd've

>>8945557

is there an opencv integration for julia?

It's 3. Each color/part combination for each of the 3 different parts and colors is used exactly 3 times.

>>8942723
3

>>8942723
-1/12

>>8937250
Now let [math]P:L^2(\Omega )\rightarrow L^2(\Omega )[/math] be a projection onto [math]S[/math] and likewise for [math]P'[/math]. These operators are necessarily self-adjoint. Recall the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics which states that if we measure a state [math]\psi[/math] over a set [math]S[/math], the unnormalized state [math]\psi[/math] becomes [math]P\psi [/math] with probability [math]\lVert P\psi\rVert [/math] (the particle is observed) or [math](I-P)\psi [/math] with probability [math]\lVert (I-P)\psi\rVert [/math] otherwise.

For the remainder of these posts I am going to assume [math]\Omega =\{ 1,...,n\}[/math] for ease of notation so that everything may be represented by matrices, although we could certainly extend the coming arguments for more general sets.

So are you actually going to post something or not? I don't know much about quantum physics but if you want to do some functional analysis I'm in (or will be tomorrow; as a Europoor I'm off to bed now).

>>8937271
thanks boss I will keep posting because of you

>>8937271
For convenience, let [math]S'=\{\omega\}[/math] be a single element set. We will treat the subset [math]S[/math] as an absorbing boundary; that is, we will take a measurement at each element of [math]S[/math]. If we find the particle there, then we will terminate the experiment. Otherwise, we will continue.

2^a + 2^a = 2(2^a)=2^(a+1)

>>8955076
C'mon anon
[math]
2^w = 2 \cdot (2^{w-1}) = 2^{w-1} +2^{w-1}
[/math]

>>8955076

[math]2^w - 2^{w-1}[/math]

[math]= 2^1*2^{w-1} - 2^{w-1}[/math]

[math]= 2^{w-1}(2 - 1)[/math]

[math]= 2^{w-1}[/math]

Stop cheating on your SAT faggot

>>8954653
no u

You tell me

>>8954553
It is yeah, but I don't think that's a direct consequence of [math](0,1)[/math] having the same cardinality as [math]\mathbf{R}[/math]. I could very well be wrong on the last bit though.

Cardinality is a meme. Measure is were is at

>>8954563
I agree with this man here.

>>8954353
Women studies.

>>8954353
Enjoy being poor :^)

Why does /sci/ have such an autistic obsession with "purity"? Why are fields worth less if they're an amalgamation of certain other fields?

>>8954227
varicocelis

elephantiasis

File: South-Park-Randy-Balls-in-Wheel-Barrow.jpg (136KB, 792x612px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 792x612px

But I want them to be big and healthy.

>>8953980
he was a faggot

He was the original beta male

>>8953980
He was too beautiful for this world

(2/2)

After the final time the simulation is executed, the consciousness embedded within is effectively dead. I would assume that this consciousness is now eligible for the afterlife.

What if multiple copies of the simulated consciousness are run? Would each one arrive in the afterlife? Could the consciousnesses be merged into one mind? What if each one was run for such a subjectively long time that and be given to such a wide range of experiences that they are effectively different people? What if some of the simulations came to their relationship with God only after the mind upload? How much difference would be needed for different organizations of consciousness to be considered unique individuals?

Suppose supercomputers in this future could simulate experience at a rate far faster than flesh humans experienced. For example, for each second of computation time, perhaps a year of subjective experience is simulated. It's fair to say that we are not the person we used to be five years ago. Given minutes of computation time, could we create a machine that manufactures and destroys unique individuals?

Let's say we upload the mind of a devout person who will surely go to heaven. Let's say we copied the initial state of the connectome data, let it live in a randomly selected, aperiodicly evolving environment for five subjective years, and then terminate the execution and remove the resultant connectome data. Has heaven gained a new member?

Let's run this new manufacturing program in serial, every five seconds. Would this suggest that heaven receives a new person every five seconds? Let's run this program in parallel, constantly spamming the afterlife with an unlimited set of permutated people. What shall become of this?

Would we be guilty of mass murder?

Have we created God's clone troopers?

>>>/x/

The problem is that the entry requirements and entry procedure for the afterlife are practically undocumented. There's only claims that it exists (which are disputed), plus some very vague descriptions (which are inconsistent). We don't know what part of you goes to the afterlife, nor how this happens.

Assume there is an entity <You> that will go to the afterlife after death. In order to have a copy of <You> enter the afterlife, we must copy <You>, not just the physical shell <You> inhabits. You say that your recorded data, the <State>, experiences consciousness when a program operates on it. However, this may be a false premise; just because it looks and acts like the physical shell of <You> does not mean it actually has a consciousness in the same way as <You> (see the Chinese room thought experiment). The <State> may only appear to have a consciousness, and the consciousness may be what passes on to the afterlife.

Assuming there is a God who created reality, it is unlikely the laws on his Universe would allow the consciousness itself to be copied. The practical result of such a duplication, then, would be that <You> pass on to the afterlife, while in the perception of everyone else, you remain in the world as the <State>. Eventually, the <State> will meet its end, but it doesn't "die" any more than the Furby you owned as a kid.

But you are math, anon. Everything you consist of can be described mathematically.

>>8953342
>Everything you consist of can be described mathematically.
Keep telling youself that

>>8953339
WTF?

File: lego sun vicinity.jpg (7KB, 218x231px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 218x231px

http://www.arbesman.net/blog/2010/12/27/lego-map-of-nearby-stars/

Is this the best we can do?

a pop up book

Space engine. Set the view to center on Earth and then back off a few light years, and ramp up time until you're circling Sol at whatever distance you want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltcnr6uXDR4

Or else a mobile.