Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 1339. page

>>8389047
No but just humor them for your easy A.

>>8389058
It just seems incredibly disingenuous to call it a science and then be this biased.

At least call it Philosophy or something, not science.

Just fucking make your own opinion instead of asking others for it.

Bum bum bum bum

>>8389046
are you retarded

File: Jshit.jpg (210KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1024x768px

>>8389046
>>>/g/tfo

>>8389015
A kalagram of stew, because stew is heavier than fedders

>>8389015
Better question: which is heavier 2.20462 lbs of feathers or 1kg of steel?

>>8389015
Neither, a kilogram is a kilogram you fucking dense cunt.

>I feel they weren't as clear as I imagine those of a good book would be, so I am starting to suspect the author is following the formal and incomprehensible meme way of explaining things.
That is how it works with linear algebra, linear algebra is already in the field of abstract algebra, it isn't about geometrically visualizing things (which is what every freshman tries to do with new math), because it is about redefining and generalizing the very concepts of geometrically looking at things.

So, yes, it's an abstract subject, and is about learning how to visualize abstract ideas.

>>8388944
I read specifically this book to learn linear algebra. Not for class though, I just handpicked it. I was pretty blind at the moment so I could have ended with any book but I ended up liking it.

It feels like mathematics. Reading other books (suggested to me here) I saw how the first things they taught were matrix multiplication and other operations, but in this book matrix multiplication is not even mentioned until the half of the book.

Why? This book CONSTRUCTS linear algebra. Multiplying matrices does not even make sense before we want a computational way to model function composition in a vector space. The book teaches you the naive way to get the product of two linear maps (matrices) by working with basis vectors and putting them through the maps but then PROVES how you can do this faster by considering the operation defined as 'matrix multiplication'.

I think it was an exercise to prove that matrix multiplication was equivalent to map composition.

It is pretty good, I enjoyed the process. One thing I will say is that I skipped all the applied sections that are between chapters that tell you how to use what you just learned in geometry, physics, chemistry, etc. I did not give a shit but I say that maybe I missed out so you should probably read some of them if they sound interesting. I just skipped them immediately, hungry for the next chapter.

I rate 8/10

>>8388944
>>8388964

Fuck, I forgot to mention that after laying the ground work for what linear algebra even is, there is an entire chapter dedicated to the geometric interpretation of linear algebra where they teach you useful theorems like calculating the angles between n-dimensional vectors and such. The author juggles intuitionistic and formal arguments pretty well in that section. I also like how he draws sets.

Try to destroy a proton or electron faggot.

all of our laws are just rules of thumb

we have even found cases where the second law is violated, albeit for brief periods

File: latest[1].png (336KB, 513x512px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 513x512px

>>8388864
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation

>>8388777
>>>/adv

>>8388777
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MHhLDCJ57E
KILL ADVISOR

>>8388792
Yeah I fantasize about that while walking angrily for ~10 miles by mistake.

Neither. Guess my field fampai.

>>8388770
Liberal arts?

>>8388768
Whatever the hell I can get. The market is cut-throat.

Well he managed to bamboozle a bunch of nerds into giving him money for nothing and convinced them that his Harry-Potter fanfic was an inspired work of philosophy, so he can't be all that dumb.

>>8388742
No, and no.

However, MIRI has started actually producing research and behaving like a serious research organization, and stopped producing fanfic, so that's something at least.

>>8388993
He's clearly extremely smart, IQ easily >145.
>>8388742
At this point, I don't think anything can really save us from the threat of strong AI, possibly barring the formation of an all-powerful world government.

>>8388733
If you're in close range and not in a bomb shelter, I think you're pretty much fucked. Escaping the firey blast by hiding or going slightly underground does not ensure survival.

>>8388738
Pretty much this.

>>8388738
But what would kill you, heat and impact? If you covered the hole with something strong would that help? Not OP.

Self bump

Game theory is surprisingly useless when it comes to any interaction that involves more than a handful of players. Throw in the stochastic dynamics of real-life, incredibly asymmetric information among the players, and there is likely never going to be an equilibrium.

File: Bildschirmfoto 2016-10-03 um 18.16.22.png (74KB, 628x223px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 628x223px

>>8388707
Do you have a link to your paper?

>>8388537
this can only end well

>>8388541
I would be applying drop by drop

>>8388537
This is a baaaad idea
>apply fluids
>think they don't behave like fluids
>get a nice "round" hole

There is a thing calde hammer drills
specificaly for this task
This ofcourse may take few minutes but you get a nice hole
just warn your neighbors

File: 1471075008838.jpg (125KB, 500x517px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 500x517px

Ez op. You're looking at it backwards.
DNA was a response to the atmosphere, which formed as a response to the composition of the planet, which formed as a response to gravitational attraction between dust particles, which formed as a response to the nature of the universe as a whole.

There is a cause/effect pattern, and looking at its products can be confusing for sure. But think on a higher level, op.

That's not to say that something might have formed prior to us and then influenced our development (panspermia, look it up). In fact, I am a firm believer in some form of it. But don't easily dismiss science just because it doesn't make sense at a first glance op, some things don't make intuitive sense until you dissect them.

Thousands of years of evolution, and something like pic-related can make anyone think creation is the answer. It doesn't have to be.

>>8388510
What is the alternative? At some point you always have to assume that something came out of nothing or something just is the way it is.

The things you mentioned formed in almost 14 billions years, that is far longer then any time span you could ever imagine, so of course it's hard to imagine. Plus the universe is really fucking big. Like, really really big. It is even harder to imagine how insanely fucking huge it is than it is to imagine how old it is.

>>8388516
couldn't have formed prior to us*

>>8388498
Well yes, quite obviously. The guy here is just being a dick on purpose. If he would just tell the password everyone would live happily ever after.

>>8388502
But what if the password guys family is held hostage and if he tells the password, they will slowly torture and kill his family.

>>8388498
If I put him in front of the tracks with the rest of the people will I be justified in giving those people justice for the exact same thing he's doing to them?

>>8388425
Time doesn't slow down from your perspective. You feel time going as usual.

>>8388439
Time at some point will go so slow that you'll see the universe dying all around you. I think that was the point.

>>8388442
Your body functions will also slow down including your mind.

What can this help achieve our solve? What real world examples can this be used for?

In interactive proofs, there are two parties: the prover and the verifier. Generally the prover has more computational power, or some secret knowledge that the verifier does not have.

We want to design a protocol for the prover to prove some statement to the verifier.

If the statement is true and the prover is honest, the verifier should believe the statement is true.

If the statement is false and the prover is dishonestly trying to prove the statement, the verifier should catch the prover in the lie with some high probability, despite being less powerful than the prover.

Consider the following scenario. You are V and your friend is P. You are colorblind, but your friend P wants to convince you that the two socks she is holding in her hands are of different colors (in other respects, they are identical - so you cannot tell them apart yourself). How can your friend convince you that the socks are different colors, even if you're colorblind?

>>8388305
This is a great question. It turns out zero-knowledge proofs are extremely important in cryptography, and your computer does IPs with servers every time you go to a HTTPS website. I'll talk more about this at the end.

>>8388308
The solution is a bit tricky. The insight is that, if the socks were the same color, then your friend P couldn't tell the difference between the two either.

You hold the two socks, one in your left hand and one in your right hand, and your friend notices which sock is held in which hand. Then she leaves the room. You flip a coin, and if it's heads, you keep the socks in the same hands, and if it's tails, you switch the socks. Then you put the coin back in your pocket, and call your friend back into the room.

Your question to her is "Did I switch the socks?"

Now, if the socks are truly different colors, it's easy to answer. But if they were the same, your friend can't tell whether you switched them or not. So she only has a 1/2 chance of getting it right, by just guessing.

Question to the reader: This only gives you a 1/2 chance of catching the prover in a lie. How can you amplify this so you're almost 100% certain that she's not lying?