Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 1614. page

>>8136248
> thought this was go and black got wrecked
what are the rules of othello again?

>>8136253

I don't know. Barely know how the game works myself. I played for two or three days several months ago. I always lost by a huge margin. Now all of a sudden I seem to have a shot at winning.

Although, I forget if the diagonals will change color if I place a chip on b1. I know the four white chips in the center of the first row will turn black, but that won't be enough to win.

>>8136260
F2, brings it to 33 28
Computer will have no moves, so b1, computer will still have no moves, b2

>>8136237
Burning wood? There are very few things that coal can do which wood cannot, albeit at a lower efficiency and higher cost.

>>8136237
the Chinese were piping and burning natural gas for energy before Jesus was born, so I'd guess it's possible to skip the coal step.

>>8136237
We have other fossil fuels right? Just no coal?

The US would not be the greatest country on Earth. Our success is largely because of our enormous coal deposits (there's a reason both sub periods of the Carboniferous are named after places in the US). But with other fossil fuels available we would simply rely on them more.

>>8136065
Here is my thinking for this.
intelligence = ability to reason. with reason/logic being a limited thing (deduction upon reality, reality being limited) so too will the ability to apprehend this deduction
(intelligence) be limited.
hypothetically if a person we're to be absent all ability to reason, their mind being equatable to a sort of fathomless dream, are they
still an intelligent being?
no they are not. if define intelligence as ability to reason, without reason there cant be intelligence.
consciousness = an apprehension of reality
if they do not have the ability to reason they do not have the ability to apprehend.
therefore consciousness = ability to reason

>>8136065
> biologists
> scientist
Turbulence is the biggest mystery

File: image.jpg (512KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 3264x2448px

Being so smart that you perceive actions before you're doing them. It's a rather ambiguous term as were not the only things living, just the only ones deciding to live. Not all decisions are conscious, so how are we to tell which part of our thinking is the conscious bit? There are of course levels of conciousness as in some people are infinitely less concious in their decision making. Most decisions have been social and cohabiting ones, even though they persisted from times we would not have considered ourselves as concious. Is relating to another's intelligence what simply defines consciousness, is IQ a measurement of that or is knowledge unconscious?

Good idea, but supplement it with a book. Unless you're doing pure math, probably Stewart.

>>8136035
You must have triple bonds because you are alkynes of retarded.

>>8136039
top kek. Why am I retarded for this?

Does it talk about that hip bone which has no current use? I've been interested in learning more about that.

>>8136017
Also interested.

While this isn't the same thing and it is fiction, but the book "Evolution" by Stephen Baxter follows humanities' evolution from tiny mouse-like creature to homo sapiens, to some other thing later on. It is actually pretty depressing.

>>8136021
Not enough to read it just for that. Really glosses over modern stuff and goes into each landmark fossil we have.

>>8135700
When I met mathematicians.

>>8135700
When public education beat it out of me. I've since fallen back in love with it.

>>8135700
When I was introduced to the concept of imaginary numbers.

Well, the oceans would be monumentally fucked

All of the coastal areas would flood, and the earth could potentially speed up its rotation, depending on how the moon disappeared

not as bad as if the sun fell out of orbit

of course he is right

>>8135521
No.

>>8135521
No one can tell for sure.

In some aspects he's not wrong.

>not knowing about Maclaurin expansions
underage detected

>>8135475
>replicate a ln(x) function using simple math
>simple math

What does this even mean? Logs are literally basic arithmetic already.

Do a fucking taylor series, you little bitch.
Or just do some type of root if you're just looking for diminishing returns

>>8135434
you shouldn't.
leave it to people who can actually draw connexions, ie create more knowledge from what they already know.

since when was it about intelligence?

What does memorizing encyclopedias have to do with intelligence?

Any computer can do it easily, but check Microsoft's captionbot and see how dumb computers are.

To put it simply, an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Ie. You can move something an infinite distance with a finite amount of energy. That being said, spacetime isn't actually expanding, so no energy is required. In fact, the lack of energy density is what is acclerating the expansion

>>8135563
>spacetime isn't actually expanding
go on
>the lack of energy density is what is acclerating the expansion
citation?

>>8135361
>Is the big chill taken very seriously in cosmological circles?

it's the most popular theory, so what you think?

ITT:things that 13yo nerds laugh off to

File: LfqyX3p.gif (43KB, 500x666px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x666px

>>8135250
contribute or gtfo then?

File: Sail.jpg (41KB, 450x417px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 450x417px

>>8134695
I don't think so, the sails have to be massive to achieve a worthwhile amount of thrust, and that amount decreases as the solar sail vessel is pushed further away from Sol. You could use lasers to help push it along, but eventually you'll still run into the same problem. For example, if you wanted to take 40 tons to mars, you'd need a solar sail 2000 square meters across, and the trip would take almost two years. VASIMR thrusters could push you up to a faster speed and don't get weaker the further away they are from Sol.

Could work in conjunction with electrical thrusters for small light probes though.

>>8134717
>Sol
It's fine to do that here but please don't be that guy.

no
solar sails are useless

Fusion is obviously the future, but until then fission would do just fine if anyone besides shitty Old Space government assets were spending money on it. Or if it ever got a "go" for actually being done.

>>8134610
A space cannon perhaps?

>>8134610
>Aren't there cheaper ways to do this

I've no idea. I'd imagine there would be, but this might be more about some show of economic and technological might. A bit like the US did with the space race.

Eh, yes, ROVs might be simpler, but you could say that about space, too. This is a potential propaganda coup for them, rather than playing "space oneupsmanship" and trying to beat us to Mars, perhaps they hope to be the first to get people waaaay down there, instead.

The brain is in the mind which is inside the head

>>8134476
What? No, the brain is the physical organ composed of neurons, and the mind is the result of the connections between neurons. That's like saying that a computer exists in the OS... The OS is that software that runs in the hardware of the computer.

Reality and perception is based in the brain and the brain is located in reality. Hmm