I am getting fucking sick of the modern academia. Got 2nd rejection after MORE THAN A YEAR waiting with a SINGLE utterly mocking review. The reviewer literally claimed that usage of "a" instead of "the" was a reason to reject at once.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
2nd rejection in a row with this journal and no clear indication of any flaws in my proofs!!1 Just some bitching about the notation and now this bullshit: wrong article! Whereas it is crystal clear from the context which article was meant! Moreover, even "a" might have been right -- depends on interpretation. Both me and this ignorant ass reviewer are not native speakers for fuck sake.
I can't stand this shit anymore. How can you even start a new idea in this ignorant ass academia? This is supposed to be science for fuck sake! Science means discovery! Do you fucks think everybody have to ever fuck around with the banal topics which have been fucked over thousands of times already????? It is a god damn mafia for fuck sake!11 No entrance for anyone without the Godfather's ok?
You know that you can appeal a rejection, right? Email, or even better, call the action editor and ask. Explain the situation. More often than not they'll send it out for review again.
Why don't we use a base infinity number system?
When did you realize that the "scientific method" is literally just glorified trial and error?
why did it take you so long to realize this? trial and error plus mathematical formalization.
the more depressing thought is that we actually don't have a better method for testing theory about reality.
Well machine learning and data sci has given us a powerful way to look at data we've collected.
And through Topological Data Analysis we can more precisely see assertions and connections in the data.
Implying that trial and error isn't the best method for obtaining truth that we have ever come across, "glorified" or not? How else were you going to find out how things work? Think about it really hard for a while?
>quantum 'physicists' literally invented an infinite amount of universes because they couldn't deal with the consequences of the Copenhagen Interpretation
You pop-sci dorks and your infinitely branching universes make me sick. There is one universe and it's made out of probability fields.
Deal w/ it.
Phycisists have a bad way of speaking figuratively when describing the universe. All they are saying is that the POSSIBILITY of things happening in a different way exists, not that it really is in the present. What could have been does pose a legitimate moral question, for example what if you had tunneled out into space onto the moon?
They exist as a possibility within the framework of the theory. For example if one were to bet one's life on a coin flip, even if one wins there would exist a possible reality whereby that person is dead. Which leads one to the conclusion that permitting the possibility that one dies based on random chance is a bad thing to do, right? (Or that the coin flip could be rigged)
Did this guy seriously fucking invent his own mathematics to solve an unsolvable problem?
>when your colleague gives his own exposition of the proof but the theorems themselves are still over a page long
>The proposition immediately follows from the described algorithms.
The Chinese are clothing in on a Science victory while the US of A is fucking around.
>Propellantless Propulsion: The Chinese EmDrive by CAST scientist Dr. Chen Yue, China's Space Agency
>The Chinese are clothing in on a Science victory
>Get Bachelor's in Mathematics
>Nobody is hiring
>Can barely land a job as a cashier at the local Applebees.
You guys promised me that STEM was the wave of the future. Why did you lie?
Over a single decade every cell in the human body will die and (generally) be replaced.
The exception to this are small concentrations of cells in the brain's cerebral cortex and heart which are 'permanent' and irreplaceable.
Yet over this same period of time, despite the near total replacement of one's physical body, there is a self perceived continuity of consciousness (of memory and sense of self)
How can one explain this apparent contradiction? I can think of only 3 plausible explanations:
1. An individual's consciousness resides somewhere within these small bundles of brain and/or heart cells. In regard to consciousness, everything else is superfluous; or
2. An individual's consciousness does not reside solely within these small concentrations of primordial cells, and consciousness either erodes over time as these other cells are lost, or the new cells replacing them are somehow integrated into the seat of consciousness, wherever that may be; or
3. An individual's consciousness does not reside in the body or perhaps at all. Consciousness itself may be an illusion resulting from a continuity of qualia
Any other ideas?
There was never any mechanism for continuity of "self" to begin with and there is no paradox. "Self" is a convenient concept for grouping together the brain activity of a given organism from moment to moment.
Is this a good textbook for learning calculus 1-3? It's published by Princeton.
I've never seen that book
however I learned calc 1-3 with pic related
I bought a calc I textbook and never touched it, never bought the calc III book.
I got A's in all the classes and would say I have an incredibly strong understanding of all the concepts.
I just worked out problems and googled shit that didn't come intuitively.
Just watched the NOVA episode about this. Pretty cool. It's a shame we have to waste what little money,resources,time we have rather than doing more stuff like this.
Also interesting that they use Solaris.