Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 1384. page

>>8335213
>then
Then is temporal, than is comparative.

Due to your error, you won't be receiving an answer to your question. Try again tomorrow.

cute snake

>>8335215
It is, but he needs to understand it doesn't make up for the error in his post.

In particular, there seems to be skepticism that this is even a solvable problem in principle. A number of people seem to think that this is something which literally cannot be done.

Their justification for this belief, when asked, is typically that 'it hasn't already been done' - which doesn't seem to be a strong argument.

Are there any good reasons to suspect that this is something which, in principle, is not amenable to medical intervention?

There is also a common belief that nobody 'wants' to cure it because then they wouldn't be able to sell all sorts of lotions and potions which don't really work.

This argument seems obviously false, as anyone who could sell something which actually did work would - if they could patent it or otherwise legally protect a time-limited monopoly - clearly make a fortune because nobody in their right mind would continue to use products which didn't work if a real cure became available - and indeed many people unhappy with their present situation but skeptical of the efficacy of current treatments would be delighted to hand over their cash for a proven cure. The rest of the industry would be screwed; there's a huge economic incentive to do it.

>>8335036
It will be cured with genetic engineering, since its a pretty simple genetic trait

>>8335048

Do you mean for future people (i.e. those not already born) or for everyone?

Obviously this is something we'll want to edit out of the genome in the future; and that should be reasonably easy. I suspect it will be routinely designed out of the equation in the mid to late 2020s; and be out of the germline almost entirely by mid-century.

But for those people already alive, are you proposing somatic cell gene therapy or what?

No. Maybe you are dehydrated.

>>8334984
Yes. You should take a break from that precalculus.

>>8334992
I was playing the guitar.

>>8334969
It's bullshit. The problem is that people will eat 6000 Calories every day in cake and then blame it on the fact that it came from flour.

What you really have to worry about is how much sugar is in your diet.

>>8334969
I haven't seen anything beyond the paleolithic diet argument, which isn't that compelling. From what I've seen it boils down to the same argument against corn syrup. It's so damn cheap that it's usage provides humans with more Calories than they know what to do with, but that's not a problem with the food. Just eat fewer Calories in general and there is no problem.

>>8334979
Flour is mostly made up of sugars...

Wheat is not good for you, but not because of some weird gluten allergies...

File: ramanujan.jpg (87KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 750x500px

>>8334947
do you know this is true? what's the context?

>>8335051
>do you know this is true
yes

>what's the context?
just an example building towards some weil stuff

File: void pepe.png (703KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 600x600px

>>8335060
it's not quite true, you might want to use a different textbook then whereever you're getting this info from. you can find it on page 7 here (https://eprint.iacr.org/2005/374.pdf) but basically you just:
1) write a=#E(F_5)-(5+1) and x^2-ax+5=(x-b)(x-c)
2) by theorem 4.12 in reference 15 in the above link we have #E(F_(5^n))=(5^n+1)-(b^n+c^n)
3) manually check that there's 6 points over F_5
4) so 6=#E(F_5)=5+1-a implies a=0
5) so x^2+5=(x-b)(x-c) implies b = -c = sqrt(-5)
6) so #E(F_5^n)=5^n+1 if n is odd, and #E(F_5^n)=5^n +- 2*5^(n/2)+1 if n is even

google sky

>>8334872
3D as in I can change my position and see the stars in their true positioning to each other.

http://www.amnh.org/our-research/hayden-planetarium/digital-universe/

I keep trying to download it but I'm technologically inept and I can't figure it out

Nice try faggot. You won't get that info for free.

>>8334858
Might be the wrong board for this but. If North Korea were to nuke the US would we really just nuke them back? Is that the only option? Seems kind of outdated with little respect for life

>>8334881
it would probably open up the country for being taken over. I'm sure Russia would pounce at the idea of taking north korea for itself if its given a reason to.

>>8334580
You were wrong. Clearly, P = NP is not true for all N.

For example, consider N = 2. Then P = 2P, which implies 1 = 2, which is false. Therefore, P != NP.

Where is my million bucks?

File: 98asd.jpg (7KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x241px

>>8334596

>it's another "anon intentionally treats P=NP as an algebra equation to try to be funny" episode

>>8334580
OK it seems like everyone is just making P=NP way more complicated than it needs to be. Like all it's saying is that any problem that can be verified quickly can also be solved quickly. But obviously that's true because how could you verify it if you hadn't already solved it? People just get too caught up in the obscure math hieroglyphics and lose sight of the bigger picture

>>8334397
Just induct it, bro.

>>8334397
This is really obvious. If there are more than 0 ways of choosing a sequence of positive integers n_k, then there is a maximum positive integer n_M. Clearly, any k length sequences that feature positive integers greater than n_M will not satisfy the equation, as every reciprocal generated by the new sequence is less than every reciprocal generated by the n_k sequence. Now that we have proved that we can only choose k positive integers between 1 and n_M, there are clearly only finitely many choices we can make, therefore, for every real number r, and every positive integer k, there are either no k length sequences of positive integers that solve the equation, or there are finitely many. (Clearly, we aren't supposed to include longer length sequences in the sum of reciprocals, as you can just turn 1(n_i) = 1/(2*n_i) + 1/(2*n_i), which would allow you to make infinitely many sequences of positive integers).

>>8334440
*that only include integers greater than n_M

>>8334385
Maybe.
But what's your excuse OP?

>>8334467
extra chromosome

File: 1472930937876.jpg (25KB, 256x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 256x400px

>>8334470
witnessed

>>8334380
huh really makes you think

how can the trees be real if the wind isn't real?

>>8334380

gtfo

sage

>>8334338
shitposting on 4chan

>>8334341
they don't have 4chan in russia

Living in a depressing Russian apartment, probably solving the Riemann hypothesis that he publish posthumously because he hated all the attention he got from the Poincare proof.

ya
noone use them

>>8334334
>know enough C to implement an assembler/interpreter for a noncomplete ISA
Is FORTRAN really that bad or will it be more of the same?

>>8334700
CFD and FEA is done in FORTRAN

heck

Fritz Haber
>Haber-Bosch process makes ammonia production ez
>industrial production of firtilizer causes population to skyrocket
>realizes people suck and becomes the father of chemical warfare

probably Linus Pauling

it's an introductory course, you're not supposed to know any.

>>8334296
python is xkcd-tier plebbit meme language for hipster physicists but it works

It has exactly one thing going for it: it's not perl.

C# is also a meme language but it is a language business-types know about so it gets used.

Programming with nearly any language developed since 1974 will be fine. No significant progress has been made in making better languages since scheme, just lots of little things.

>>8334296
How about you just fucking learn any language first. Just make sure you don't learn some shitty one like VB or COBOL. Every language in that list is fine. They mostly differ in how they are implemented (interpreted vs compiled etc). If you want a job then you should know multiple programming languages anyway (javascript effectively mandatory because browsers are everywhere).