Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 1563. page

No.

No.

>>8176360
Can i have an explanation too please?

>>8175681
*slower

>>8175681
>makes thread mocking pseudoscience
>global warming denialist

kek?

>>8175681
>I never took physics 101

Kek good one faggot. The surface speed of the equator is larger than that of either of poles. While they both cover the same angle in the same amount of time, the equator covers a greater distance.

Speed is given by distance over time (Which is why we measure it in kilometres or miles/hour). If the distance is larger so too will be the speed.

Git gud brainlet

>>8175632
Shes right though

Gmo
Vaccine
Chemtrails
Flint michigan
Bp

I could cherry pick for days

>>8175636
only flint and bp are remotely true and they are due to corruption and incompetence not an intentional plot

>>8175632
ask her why the very sushi she ate just now shouldn't have had chemicals in it too?

You don't win the argument this way but you can enjoy your silence for the rest of your meal.

Now, the axioms.

1. Given sets A and B, there is a set AUB so that x is in AUB if and only if x is in A or x is in B.

2. Given any two sets A and B, there is a set C so that A and B are elements in C.

3. Given any set A, there is a set P(A):={S : S is a subset of A}.

4. Two sets are equal if they contain the same elements.

5. Every set A contains an element B such that A and B are disjoint. (That is, they have an empty intersection: they share no elements.)

6. (informally:) Given any formula p in the language of set theory defined over elements of a set X, there is a subset of X written {x : x in X and p(x)}.

7. There exists a set S such that the empty set is an element in S and if s is in S, then sU{s} is also a member of S. This axiom says that there exists an infinite set.

8. The product of a family of nonempty sets contains at least one element. (This is the axiom of choice.)

Let's discuss ordinals.

Definition. An ordinal is a set S such that every element in S is also a subset of S, and so that set membership defines a strict well-ordering on S.

Exercise. Show that the empty set is an ordinal, and show that no element is less than the empty set (it is the minimal ordinal).

With {}=0 the smallest ordinal, we can inductively define the successor of an ordinal S(k) to be the powerset of k. Ordinals form a proper class, and they will probably turn out to be useful somewhere down the line. I figured we should have them under our belt.

Time to talk about functions.

Let f:A->B be a function. For any element b in B, the fiber f^-1(b) is the set of elements in a such that f(a)=b.

Exercise. Show that a function is surjective if and only if the fiber over every element in the codomain is nonempty. Show that a function is injective if and only if the fiber over every element in the codomain is isomorphic to either the point (the set {*}) or the empty set. Characterize a bijective function (one which is both surjective and injective) in terms of fibers.

Given a function f:A->B, the image of f is the subset of B on elements with nonempty fiber. Show that a function surjects onto its image, and that an injection has image isomorphic to the domain.

Generalizing fibers, the preimage of a subset B' of B is the set of elements a in A such that f(a) is in B'. The preimage of the image of a function is the domain. The preimage of a single element is the fiber over that element. The preimage of the empty set is the empty set.

Given sets A and B, the set of functions from A to B is often of interest. We denote this set B^A (imagine the functions "dropping" from A to B). There is an evaluation function ev:Ax(B^A)->B which is defined by ev(a,f)=f(a). It takes an element in A and a function from A to B and yields the evaluation of that function at that element. Later on, we will characterize function sets using universal properties.

Given sets A and B, there are two projection functions p_A:AxB->A and p_B:AxB->B, defined by p_A(a,b)=a and p_B(a,b)=b. Projections are always surjective.

Exercise. Show that the fiber of the projection onto A (as above) is always canonically isomorphic to B, and visa versa.

Again, we will later show that a product and its projections satisfy a universal property. This will allow us to morally move the definition of a product to other settings using the language of category theory.

its derivative
/thread

>>8176764
>OP pretends not to know about jerking
>...on /sci/
0/10

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+change+in+acceleration

Ya jerk.

>>8171213
> half second to do multiplication
you need to upgrade your pentium 2 grandpa

>>8171218
I have Core i7.

>>8171213
Python is for kids. C# is the true programming language.

robots don't ever deserve human rights.

Define "rights"

As long as they abide by the 3 laws of robotics then everything should be fine. They have no more chance of becoming sentient than a toaster

>>8170326
This. Fuck """"AI"""" "sentience"

ITT: projection

>>8169955

Not really. Even the best seducers and pickup artists all say that they weren't born knowing how to seduce women and that they've had to learn these skills through years of trial and error.

>>8169949
Why do you assume that cavemen didnt learn how to seduce cavewomen?

Optimal in regards to what?

Health wise, all that matters is water, kcals, essential fats, essential amino acids, and certain vitamins and minerals.

Where the above is derived from is not important.

>>8178173
>le vegetables are healthy xD
I want this meme to die.

>>8178184
Fat the good fat.
But it's right, red meat is at least 50% saturated fat.

mfw chemistry phd since 500 BC and still on 4chan

File: ronswansoneverbody.jpg (52KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x375px

>>8177429
>math PhD
>300k starting
>any job I want

>>8177429
>Science is spending countless hours searching for knowledge that will never be directly applied.

Where does it say science needs to be applied. Go do engineering.

>>8181287
Planets, yes.

Galaxies, no.

>>8181358
why not, really?
if we go by the notion that the existing scientific endeavors will develop further, it could be anyone's guess.
cryogenics is still a debated thing, uploading consciousness to preserve a mind is also a viable method.
Why would you think we couldn't simply fling an inert spore-like ship to estimated trajectories of other galaxies?

Not galaxies, other than Andromeda, Triangulum, and the surrounding dwarf galaxies unless we invent FTL travel.

Planets, definitely.

that's called blueshifting. You can't add up colinear velocities when dealing with waves.

>>8182177
> plebs on this board
> sum the velocity when dealing with relativity
seriously do some research before posting.

>>8182177
>blaming science for your idiocy
But hey, I'm no better, replying to a shitposter and all.

no takers?

>>8181992
No this Fermi problem is boring.

>>8181994
pussy

are you retarded?
just pick the smartest animals from the litter, and breed on with that, and so on.
it's not that fucking hard.

god

>>8181464
total shitpost

>>8181408
get the ones that communicate to bang eachother

>>8181209
Yes, the current notation is shit and difficult to understand for people new to it. Notation should give hints to what it's underlying symbols mean. I think we should all take just take a hint from programming and use natural language followed by an arguments list. E.g.

Integrate(LeftBound, RightBound)
Union(Set1, Set2)

>>8181342
>notation
>art
what

>>8181209
yeah, computers

hover mouse over notations, get explains