Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 117. page

>>9134585
Mathematically, no. That's why I write fiction. If I die I'll always have my books to remind people that I once lived.

>>9134610
>If I die
you mean when?

>>9134612
No no I mean if.

Cummon, why can my cat jump so far? Your not scared of the truth are you. That things have rules is a better fitting theory than universal laws. You do know your indoctrinated not to believe the truth don't you. Stand with me if you've seen unbelievable. You seriously don't believe my cat obays popular opinion amoungst the educated do you?

>>9134688
/X/ is it?

>>9134692
Exoskeleton

do the math

>>9134531
explain

>>9134525
Dying is pretty much considered the worst possible thing in most of the world.

On the other hand, please end me doctor. This planet is bollocks.

>>9134380
Well, that's the point of axiomatic set theory. In naive set theory if you can write a set then it exists. You can write R and therefore it exists. If you want R not to exist then you need to write an axiomatic system in which R cannot be written.

File: 1462541309834.jpg (51KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x900px

Well, obviously no set can contain itself as an element.

For example,
[math]R = \{R\} \rightarrow R = \{\{\{\{\{ \ldots[/math]

File: caraOK.png (433KB, 406x505px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 406x505px

Naive set theory has

∀P. ∃X. X = {x|P(x)}

where "X = {x|P(x)}" is syntactic sugar for

∀x. (x ∈ X ⇔ P(x))

For P(x) := x ∈ x, you get a contradiction.

>>9134447
>obviously
Is that a "proof writing down half of a string"?
The claim follows from the wellfoundedness axiom and if you drop it, you get set theories that are just as valid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-well-founded_set_theory
and those have been studied a lot too.

And even if we consider naive set theory, from a formal logic standpoint having Russels paradox still makes it a perfectly nice theory. However, when you can proof any statement in a theory, it renders it useless. But it doesn't render it "wrong" in any strong sense of the word..

File: 1491205048665.png (76KB, 863x489px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 863x489px

>>9134310
You might fare better on x.

So the American government destroys one of its own major economic centers on purpose
Yeah that makes sense
Yeah I can totally understand why "they" thought that was a good idea

>>9134340
Thanks I'll try there

>>9134475
That's what I'm trying to figure out. They can not use it any other nation, it would be considered an act of war. They can only play in their own backyard, plus can you guess what controls 80% of the us economy? Its the weather wake up dumbass

>>9134141
>cant explain it
>call it ringed gas giant

>>9134141
That desperate pre-hypothesis fails even to explain the irregularities in the dimming. A ringed planet would still be somewhat regular.

And still, what planet can dim the star by 20 percent overnight? And do so over several days??

Fail.

Test

>>9134119
Tell me what shitty daycare do you go to so I can avoid it.

File: 1343-ok-hand-sign.png (6KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 512x512px

>professor presents another Perry Bible Fellowship strip in class

File: ooooooh.jpg (45KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x360px

>>9134119
>It's the one about grade assignments using a stochastic model.

wow, really makes you think...

I know this is bait but I feel like venting some autism.

Consider, for a minute, how modern monitors work. The image consists of a grid of pixels, commonly around 2 million of them, right? (1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600)
The standard color depth in HDMI is 24 bits, meaning that each pixel requires 24 bits of data to be transmitted per TMDS cycle (a clock signal that is transmitted on a separate wire in the HDMI cable).

We'll ignore overhead in the HDMI signal used to denote the end of each line and the end of each image. It's basically a sequence of "0"s that is transmitted after each line / image, respectively, and effectively increases the number of pixels to be transmitted. I forget the lengths of those intervals but we'll ignore them for now. Keep this in mind though.

Now, the number of processor cycles (assuming only one processor core is tasked with producing the image) that are available for each frame -- i.e. how many single-step operations the core can perform between two frames, including those necessary for producing the image, can be calculated:
[math]N_C = \frac{f_C}{f_F}[/math]
where [math]f_C[/math] is the processor's clock frequency and [math]f_F[/math] is the desired frame rate. For a 3 GHz clock and a frame rate of 60 FPS, we arrive at 50,000,000.

Now consider the fact that each frame consists of several million pixels. The number of operations per pixel is [math]\frac{5 \cdot 10^7}{2.073 \cdot 10^6} \approx 24[/math].

And now remember that
1) we ignored the effective image size which is larger than the nominal image size, and
2) these are single CPU instructions.
Now if we already have the video data in memory, there's no problem -- we could use DMA to read the pixel data from memory and send it on each CPU cycle. We'd have a little more than 20 cycles per pixel left for other stuff, the core would be at less than 5% load. We could (theoretically) increase the frame rate by a factor of 10 and still not run into any issues on the processor side.

The bottleneck in HDMI is the cable. For a full HD image (1920 x 1080) at 60 FPS with a color depth of 24 bits per pixel, your data rate is R = 2,985,984,000 bit/s.

Using the Shannon-Hartley theorem
[math]C \leq B \log_2 \left ( 1 + \frac{S}{N} \right )[/math]
and setting [math]C = R \approx 3\,\mathrm{Gbps}[/math] and [math]B = \frac{f_C}{2}[/math] (see Shannon-Nyquist theorem) we can calculate the S/N necessary for an error-free transmission if the processor is running at 100% load, using DMA, with no HDMI protocol overhead (N is the effective noise power in Watt, S is the signal power):

[math]\frac{S}{N} \geq 2^{R/B} - 1[/math]

[math]\frac{S}{N} \geq 2^{3 \cdot 10^9 \,\mathrm{bps} ~/~ 1.5 \cdot 10^9 \,\mathrm{Hz}} - 1[/math]

[math]\frac{S}{N} \geq 2^2 - 1 ~=~ 3[/math]

That's actually pretty surprising to me, I'd have expected a much higher value. As it is, pushing the processor core to its limits (100% load, DMA meaning it takes 1 instruction to load and output the pixel data) under perfect conditions (ignoring HDMI protocol overhead, guard periods and rise times, assuming perfect synchronicity and zero latency where necessary), we can tolerate noisy interference of up to 1/3rd the power as the signal's (roughly 1/10th the voltage). In other words, an SNR of only (approximately) 10 dB is necessary for this transmission. Should be do-able (and obviously is, as you can see by the fact that plenty of people use HDMI for full-HD 60 FPS displays).

>>9133927
GREAKS AND ROMANS ARE WHITE

File: WE.jpg (1MB, 1920x2240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x2240px

>>9133934

>>9133939
You made this shit thread just to post that picture. Fuck you.

>>9133742
3 or 4

3 or 4, but I'd wager 4.

Honestly the pattern is a bit vague.

>>9133742
3

>>9133698
Why ask "what do you think"? It's not a matter of opinion, the correlations are as strong as anything you're going to get in the social sciences.

>>9133711

What corrilations? It all depends on your interpritation of what matters faggot

Who gives a fuck.

Learn. Gain knowledge. Apply that knowledge.
Create. Envision. Grow with experience.

Can you do that? Good. Then what the fuck are you fussing over IQ for?

Math.
Philosophy is bullshit for pseudo intellectual stoners.

>>9133539
A mixture of both.

Mathematics was created by humans and philosophy is humans pondering theit existence and the world around us.

>>9133539
Philosophy.
Math is a derivative of philosophy, and is therefore less pure in terms of sequential value.

>>9133355
...... you know its called 'dark' in the sense of unknown rather than appearance right?

>>9133362
No, you brainlet. It's called "dark matter" because it's dark. A dark purple, to be precise. Much darker than the OP's pic. It emits a frequency that only certain scientific microphones can detect.

>>9133376
I really cant understand where you get this infomation from? Source?

File: IMG_7053.jpg (143KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x720px

>>9133272
Here's another I have seen

File: IMG_7054.jpg (63KB, 500x325px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x325px

>>9133272
>>9133273
And yet another, and they make me rather confused. I live in Minnesota along the Mississippi River and I have always wanted to know what would actually happen because in pretty much every single one of these maps, I'm in some different risk level and I'm not entirely sure which one is scientifically accurate.

Yes, statistically it's probably not going to ever explode in my lifetime and NASA is planning on finding a way to drill it so that it never explodes ever, but I just want to be able to understand these maps and figure out which one is correct

>>9133272
This one is just a rough estimate.

>>9133273
This one shows previous supervolcano eruptions (from many millions of years ago)

>>9133277
This one is more accurate.

>>9133264
It's just the beginning baby

We are not even close to the amount of time dinosaurs dominated earth.

>>9133264
Humans are a shit-tier example of evolution. We've barely properly evolved in thousands of years, now. Maybe within social systems and creations, but not biologically.

Generally, it's the smaller organisms that live in harsher conditions and have lots of offspring that might qualify for the 'epitome' of evolution, whatever that means. Do you mean the epitome of evolutionary principles?