File: germanscant.png (416KB, 1920x1080px) Image search:
[Google]
416KB, 1920x1080px
90% of German psychology researchers couldn't get these right. Can you /sci/?
13 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
>psychology
>science
nice bait
>>
>>8263264
They're all false.
>>
File: Screenshot_2016-08-11-04-30-20-1.png (1MB, 1440x2022px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 1440x2022px
BOTH PLAN TO DO THE FIRST HEAD TRANSPLANT IN 2017
WHICH WILL BE SUCCESSFUL
WHICH WILL BE FIRST?
27 Posts / 4 Images
View this topic
>>
File: Screenshot_2016-08-11-04-31-00-1.png (555KB, 1440x1729px) Image search:
[Google]
555KB, 1440x1729px
>>8263225
>>
File: latest[1].jpg (22KB, 400x535px) Image search:
[Google]
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/hWHi1ut.jpg "latest[1]")
22KB, 400x535px
>>8263226
is that Mike on the right ?
>>
so... how is it going to fail?
Are there any studies equal to or better than STEM?
28 Posts / 3 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8263187
No.
>>
>>8263187
>better than STEM
There is no level higher than max level.
>>
>>8263187
YES study of world peace is better in terms of making this world a better place for all.
File: Monkey-typing.jpg (76KB, 633x356px) Image search:
[Google]
76KB, 633x356px
So i just read about the infinite monkey theorem.
Hamlet by Shakespeare has around 130.000 letters and ignoring punctuation and upper-case, getting 1 letter right is a 1 out of 26 chance. The probability of getting the entire text right on first try is one in 3.4x10^183.946.
The chance is fuckballs small ofc but i was wondering, would x number of monkeys be enough to type out the text correctly first try if x was Grahams Number?
18 Posts / 2 Images
View this topic
>>
it would be extremely improbable
>>
>>8263137
But shouldn't the sheer size of grahams number be enough?
>>
>>8263121
>Grahams Number
No such thing, the biggest number is [math]10^{200}[/math].
File: e87f0236b7e8646c16b0a3892bc92d17.jpg (88KB, 736x981px) Image search:
[Google]
88KB, 736x981px
Any good websites for finding science news?
Like http://sciencenewsjournal.com/ or http://www.eurekalert.org/
Preferably as general and cutting edge as possible
29 Posts / 5 Images
View this topic
>>
popsci.com :^)
>>
number theory http://www.numbertheory.org/ntw/additions.html
>>
>>8263098
"Is The US Government About To Re-Classify Marijuana?
"In Italy, Parents Who Force Vegan Diet Could Go To Jail"
"The Case For Eating Worms"
Is this buzzfeed for science? I know you did le reddit carrot face but come on!
File: 3872595_orig.jpg (38KB, 609x406px) Image search:
[Google]
38KB, 609x406px
Any Computer Engineers here?
How do you like it? What do you do?
40 Posts / 6 Images
View this topic
>>
>Any Computer Engineers here?
yes
>How do you like it?
its fine
>What do you do?
sucks cocks (cause im an engineer)
>>
>>8263076
Nice. How many cocks in a week?
>>
>>8263079
much like a divergent series, there is no finite limit.
File: WWF-Together-Gorillas.jpg (130KB, 640x480px) Image search:
[Google]
130KB, 640x480px
>all our theories depend on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle (the universe is homogeneous and isotropic)
What if our assumptions are wrong?-
12 Posts / 2 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8263007
Then Earth could be in a pressurized bubble that could pop any second, completely changing observable physics and quite possibly killing us all in an instant.
>>
Then we'll correct our models, like we're supposed to do when we find out our models are wrong.
'
>>
>>8263012
What if it changes gradually?
Anonymous
Graph theory simple question but confused 2016-08-11 05:57:58 Post No.8262980
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Graph theory simple question but confused 2016-08-11 05:57:58 Post No.8262980
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Graph theory simple question but confused
Anonymous
2016-08-11 05:57:58
Post No. 8262980
[Report]
[View this topic]
For pic related I wrote:
" If C(u) and C(v) do not share any vertex then the result is true, so suppose C(u) and C(v) share a vertex which we will call 's'. This implies that there exists a path from u in C(u) to v in C(v) and is strongly connected as C(u) and C(v) were strongly connected components, this can be seen as: {u, u2} {u2, u3} {u3, u_n} {u_n, s} {s, v_n} {v_n, v3} {v3, v2} {v2, v}. But since C(u) and C(v) share the common vertex 's', they are no longer components as its against the definition of component, so it follows that C(u) and C(v) do not share any vertices."
But my professor said this isn't right, (he specifically just said "no" in an email, nothing else)
I've been thinking about whats wrong with what im saying and I can't see anything wrong with it, or even if conceptually what im doing is wrong what other way could I show that C(u) and C(v) do not show a vertex.
I know there is some ambiguity in graph theory as different people consider different things but could I get a general idea on how to prove this problem?
22 Posts / 6 Images
View this topic
>>
File: study pepe.jpg (59KB, 655x527px) Image search:
[Google]
59KB, 655x527px
friendly bump
>>
I think the problem is with your conclusion that C(u) and C(v) are no longer components.
>>
File: bateleur.jpg (442KB, 1000x1000px) Image search:
[Google]
442KB, 1000x1000px
>>8262980
I can't help with the question, but this is the bateleur of knowledge, think upon things you know that once you did not, now think upon things you do not know and how you will come to know them and look back at the present in the same way, hopefully this will motivate you
Anonymous
Bosons n forces n stuff 2016-08-11 05:43:42 Post No.8262963
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Bosons n forces n stuff 2016-08-11 05:43:42 Post No.8262963
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: fucking magnets.jpg (130KB, 1338x574px) Image search:
[Google]
130KB, 1338x574px
So if magnetism is due to the electromagnetic force, and photons are the force carriers for the electromagnetic force, does that mean if I put a strong enough magnet in front of my eyes and another behind my head then I will see photons?
12 Posts / 3 Images
View this topic
>>
Did you transfer out of Physics II on the first day?
>>
>>8262971
No, I sometimes read about this stuff at work when there is nothing to do.
>>
Electric and magnetic fields are components of what's called the curvature of the photon field. Photons are propagating waves ("excitations") in this field, so you always have curvature and thus E & M fields. But if those fields (the curvature) are (is) static, then there are no propagating waves and thus no photons.
You need to change the electric or magnetic fields to create photons. It's really easy and it happens all the time, but they're super low frequency. Changing the fields back and forth a billion times a second (1 GHz) only produces radio waves. You need around 430 trillion back and forth changes in the field every second to see visible light, in that case it would be red.
File: 1470814725438.png (52KB, 850x716px) Image search:
[Google]
52KB, 850x716px
Am I the only one who finds whatever a physicist or mathematician has to say about philosophy more interesting than what philosophers say?
I often see people getting butthurt and saying things like "Feynman wasn't a philosopher", "Einstein wasn't a sociologist", etc., as if there was some sort of equivalence between all the fields of knowledge.
There's no equivalence, some fields are superior, and for the people well-versed in those superior fields, looking down at inferior fields and quickly understanding the concepts is no big deal.
It should be a requirement that you are first a physicist or mathematician before you enter into philosophy, psychology or sociology. Maybe then those fields wouldn't have so much garbage.
15 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8262949
>Why you should not extrapolate based on the first few terms of a sequence
>Proceeds to give example in which extrapolating gives you the right answer within 1 part in a few billion
wew lad
>>
>>8262949
What are you on about?
Most of the well known philosophers are also scientist.
>>
Who is your favorite philosopher who wasn't a scientist, OP? I'm curious.
File: 1470420479798.png (762KB, 800x1160px) Image search:
[Google]
762KB, 800x1160px
hey fags
just got my masters in econ (bachelors was econ + math)
am I still supposed to care about shit or what? I kinda just want to go live in the woods now and be a survivalist
11 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
The math you see in econ is babby's first math
You never got to see any real math
>>
>>8262921
Yeah it was kinda annoying how light the math was at times.
Sure there was some higher stuff INTRODUCED and in the notes, but it wasn't a real requirement to learn it, even to get an A. Particularly in microeconomics.
Still managed to do point set topology and hilbert space stuff in undergrad.
Did a lotta stats too. Oh and I learned chinese.
But yeah now i'm minimally interested in academics and just want to fight and die in a race war :s
no phd for me I guess
>>
>>8262921
And actually I did the phD level micro course, which was essentially game theory. We did browers and kakutani's fpt.
File: Autism.jpg (962KB, 1851x1851px) Image search:
[Google]
962KB, 1851x1851px
Any memes aside, why is that autism seem to disproportionately affect young males? Even though Autism is a disease that infects people for their whole entire life, every single news story, article, or psychology profile seems to describe autism within a paradigm of children and young adults. The oldest Autistic person I've seen displayed in any piece of media about autism was in his early 30s. Look up "Autism" on google and you have pictures of children and articles dedicated for handling autism in children (pic related.) Look up Autism on youtube and every single result depicts a child or a young man. PBS just did a story tonight featuring Autistic children and young adults, but why does there seem not to be any elderly or middle aged autistic people? Did something happen in the late 70s, 80s, 90s, and today that caused increased rates of Autism in comparison to previous decades? Why does there not seem to be any historical record of autism? Why is autism a disease that affects almost always males? Could it have been a change in our food or our air or our water that caused this? Autism seems to be genetic, but if that's so, why has it only appeared in recent times?
19 Posts / 2 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8262668
Isn't male IQ more spread out on the bell curve than female's? Perhaps female are stabler and less prone to that autism thing.. dunno
>>
>>8262672
>Isn't male IQ more spread out on the bell curve than female's?
not according to recent studies
that hypothesis was shut down
>>
>>8262680
Source please?
File: 1470184739574.png (1MB, 991x973px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 991x973px
What is this zika bullshit all about, overall?
Why is no one talking about quarantining and exhaustively screening people returning from the Rio Olympics (and forcing them to pay for it)? What is going on with the Olympics in general? It seems like it's largely just a front.
I'm just so tired of nothing making sense. I have ideas and decent heuristics to predict what drives a given outcome, but simply don't have time to follow and unravel every single dumb little thing the trash that is the human species fucks itself with.
25 Posts / 2 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8262637
>What is this zika bullshit all about, overall?
fear mongering
>>
>>8262637
>What is going on with the Olympics in general? It seems like it's largely just a front.
>>
>>8262656
No memes. We will only post attractive females here.
File: 2016_02_17-zika-olympics_16-9-header1398545342.png (305KB, 1290x726px) Image search:
[Google]
305KB, 1290x726px
With the Olympics in Rio, what is the probably of those athletes and spectators getting bitten by an infected mosquito and bringing Zika back to their respective countries? Are we on the verge of a pandemic?
43 Posts / 6 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8262546
What do you plan on doing before the uprising of the mosquitoes begins?
>>
There's no vaccine out for it yet, right? What are we supposed to do in the meantime? It's not like we can prevent any mosquitoes from biting us whatsoever.
>>
>>8262738
>It's not like we can prevent any mosquitoes from biting us whatsoever
Its not that hard.
> bug spray
> citronella oil
> the area sprays that eliminate a bunch more
Build more bat houses!!
File: 1454717551093.png (113KB, 396x385px) Image search:
[Google]
113KB, 396x385px
Math exists independently of reality, and not only it could explain the universe, it could explain any universe. When you study physics, you merely grasp an approximation of one specific reality. When you study maths, you understand any and all realities.
>This little realization will set you free.
25 Posts / 5 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8262505
math says absolutely nothing about reality, science is what relates the two
>>
>>8262505
>exists independently of reality
lol.
you do understand that the "science" of mathematics is based on assumptions made by monkey, right?
LITERALLY all math are based on stupid assumption like "X lines can pass through a point" and similar goofy ones.
>>
>>8262530
>the "science" of mathematics
stopped reading there
math is not science
science is applied math