Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 1007. page

>>8585784
No.

Stop trying to reduce everything into one easy-to-comprehend meme.

>>8585784
>It is blind spots led to

File: typo.jpg (68KB, 720x529px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 720x529px

>>8585792
>the "call it a meme" fallacy

>>8585806
>the pic related fallacy

>>8585440
Because there's no air going over them

>>8585437

Kind of but not really. Massive radiator vanes might be effective, but the shit in OP is worthless.

>>8585446
Oh yeah ok, that makes sense

How effective would it be though, just radiation? I suppose if they were big enough....

>>8585381

Have you sought help?

>>8585381
That's autism

Autism and god complex maybe a dash of schizo

How did we become rational animals? Which process did happen in our brains/mind/society that allowed us to reason?
>evolution, synaptic pathways, this neurology stuff

>Do you guys think there is there an ultimate purpose for human reason?
surviving and spreading your genes

>>8585261
>evolution, synaptic pathways, this neurology stuff
I know that, but I'd like to know if there are well established scientific theories about how exactly did this happen or if there's still a lot of uncertainty about it.

>surviving and spreading your genes
In which way?
I can imagine a lot of other more useful traits of spreading your genes instead of becoming a fucking immaterial ghost.

>>8585267
>more useful ways of spreading
Fixed.

>>8585232

The biggest hurdle would be getting admitted as an international student. It's definitely doable, but the bar would be higher.

>>8585232
Apply to oxford or cambridge. As long as good grades probably would be fine; uk unis love international students, oxbridge has in general a low application to place ratio too (e.g. 4/1 for undergrad) and i imagine could be cheaper than usa.

>>8585492
Cheaper then free?

>>8585232
Contact a PI you'd like to work for, ask them to help you with admissions. Just going for a "good school" is the wrong method for choosing a grad school. Some of the PI's that work at ivy league schools are nobodies who'll be nobodies for their entire career, some PI's at mid-range schools are well-known and respected in their field (i.e. they have connections). Don't work for a nobody hoping that by the time you graduate they'll have the same connections - let the Chinese students work for them. Work for someone with grant money, with a lot of papers in the best journals, and who has both academic and industry connections so when you graduate you'll have ample job opportunities.

Source: PhD in Organic Chemistry, got a job in the industry BEFORE I defended my thesis because my PI is a member of the scientific board.

If anyone here cares, this is groundbreaking shit.

>>8585095
Why are you showing me a shitty carbon compound opee?

Why would someone purposely hide information about this compound?

It's not like your average person can synthesize it easily in their basement.

>>8585044
i dont know, maybe because it is hard to make and store?????????????????????????????????????

That and I am going to also blame money; the achilles of the sciences.

>>8585044
>We haven't even made one gram of the stuff yet
>It explodes violently when it touches literally anything
>Why can't we use it as spacecraft fuel?

It's a meme

>>8585005
No it never worked.

It was just "invented" to make you stay focused on real life rather than you masturbating 7 times per day doing absolutely nothing and being a depressed little bitch that watches other people fuck instead of doing that yourself.

Also, there was a little higher testosterone, however it's really minimal and it's not worth it since you could be enjoying your masturbation right now instead.

And it also gives you testicular cancer, so you have a reason why you shouldn't be doing that.

>>8585018
Would you even want increased test if you are not gonna meathead? Isn't increased test the reason for roidrage? How is that conducive to research and civilized life?

>>8584260
B/c L^2 spaces

>>8584260

It's just like a change of basis in linear algebra. Each basis "vector"/function is orthogonal: <e^(i n*k x), e^(i m*k x)> = 0 if n≠m so you can project onto them. They are also complete ie they span the space: ∑|e^inkx><e^inkx| = 1 so you can perfectly represent any function as them and not just approximate.

funny meme

>>8583996
I mean, the analytical maths are ideally things you want to reduce into algebra, at which point, they're trivial plug-and-chug problems that any dumb pencil pusher can type into the computer and get their answer, even if the background required to understand the math is based on calculus, statistics, control theory, and the like.

Math | CS

File: 1443431108064.jpg (56KB, 480x359px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 480x359px

>>8583583

Martyrs

>>8583586
back to the /pol/

>>8583583
Scale pls

>>8583529
3 follows right from the definition of the hilbertspace norm from the scalar product.
4 is some obscure result in linear algebra, which probably can't be generalized to an infinite dimensional hilbert space setting

>>8583529
Look at the case that A is just a 1 x k vector. Then you could consider [math]\mathrm{det}(A^\top A)[math] something like [math]\langle A, A \rangle = |A|^2[/math]. The minors of that vetor are also just numbers then, so the determinants are just the numbers themselves again, so it kind of says something like [math]|A|^2 = A_1^2 + \dots + A_k^2[/math]. You could consider the equation some kind of a generalization of that, but then again not really, as I don't believe [math]\mathrm{det}(A^\top A)[/math] is a proper norm.

>>8583553
I found it on funnyjunk, which made me happy the hoi polloi would care about what a hilbert space is, but someone suggested that 3) implied 4) and that they should be switched
So I'm not sure.

About 2.485

>>8582722
3sin (1/pi)

>>8582756
i meant (1/4)pi

>>8582627
my parents are both MDs and I have 5 brothers and sisters

>>8582632
>MDs
so looks like the hypothesis is correct

>>8582632

That's nice. Now please study elementary statistics so that you will appreciate why the atomic datum that you've just provided is irrelevant to the OP's purported, would-be discussion.

We count by how long it takes position x on the earth to loop back around the sun. Not the center of the earth.

>>8582160
Seconds are now defined by the vibrations of a cesium atom. This stays constant regardless of what is happening in the solar system. So if the Earth's rotation (spin) slows down, it takes more time to pass a day - when the Sun appears in the same spot.

This is entirely independent of how long it takes for the Earth to revolve (orbit) the Sun.

However as the length of the day increases, it will eventually take noticeably fewer days to define a year, although still the same number of seconds (barring orbital changes).

>>8582160
Actually it was a whole day longer <:^]