I've been looking at the 2016 primary results and I noticed a pattern. If the corporation counting the votes used an algorithm to skew totals, would it be obvious when looking at sets of data primary data?
When I divide Sanders votes by Hillary's I almost get ratios of 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, and this is on nearly all the results they did not tie. Whats strange is this doesn't work as well with the 2008 Hillary vs Obama primaries where the ratios are more random.
Trump typically leads with 1.5x as many votes as the guy in second place. His victories also produce very close proportional numbers.
Their numbers almost always come close to a set ratio when they don't tie. It's a weird pattern I've noticed
>>7936550
Sanders is loosing because he has political bagage, not because of conspiracies.
I just assume that all elections are at least a little rigged. Sanders is obviously too leftist for the masses but Hillary isn't very popular either so idk what that leaves us with.
1. WHY does space expand?
2. Does space expand uniformly? Is new space created only between galaxies or is it also created where there's lots of matter already (like in our bodies for example)?
3. If space doesn't expand uniformly, why?
Those aren't stupid questions at all.
>>7935975
>Is new space created only between galaxies
It's not "new" space.
The same old space is expanding.
I don't know about the rest.
>>7936009
I was under the impression that galaxies and such are actually stationary and space is created between them, which gives the illusion that they are moving (which explains how galaxies can seem to move faster than the speed of light).
Is it possible to build a working computer entirely out of wood? If so, what sort of computations could be done on this computer in a reasonable amount of time? (e.g. Would it be able to beat a person at chess?)
When I was a kid, 50 years ago I used to go see my dad in work, he was an accounts clerk and had a mechanical calculator on his desk. I believe much larger mechanical calculators do exist.
Yes. It depends on your definition of reasonable amount of time.
You might be able to do something like the tinker toy computer. It wasn't really a computer and was just a big mechanical look up table.
Evaluating chess moves is probably something that could be done in parallel, so you might be able to make a huge purpose built machine to do this
But it would be very slow.
What is your opinion on Osteopathy? Is it pseudoscience? How do you feel about getting D.O. vs an M.D.?
Depends what you want from it. DO's should be well trained in medicine. Opinions may vary, and I don't give a fuck so don't argue me on this point.
But if you want someone who practices hands-on musculo-skeletal therapy, an osteopath who specializes in that is the best physical therapist you will find, by a very big margin.
you will think its shit - until you get a really bad back. (There are good and bad practitioners btw).
>>7934989
gets a bad wrap but a DO can even become a surgeon or even chief medical staff
Does anyone else want to be a polymath? I want to gain mastery in EE, physics, mathematics, chemistry, NE, fucking all that shit lmao
>>7934889
all French engineers are polymaths, or can easily be, for those who aren't already.
better start studying now.
>>7934889
Isnt that the end goal of seeking as much knowledge tho?
>>7934889
You will find all that you learn has brought you only closer to death. Stop caring for worldly things and focus on your LORD Christ Jesus. The end is near, why waste it on retarded ineffective subjects?
Theology and theocracy are the only ways to go, in Jesus name.
Amen
When Tesla did speak with the villagers about the radio magnetic waves and electronics, they were like:
>Lol, Niki lost his mind
>Muuuhh invisible energy fag
>TITS OR GTFO
100 years from then now we know what he was speaking about. So, /sci/, what are the foolish stuff people are talking about and the modern villagers laughing about?
Aliens? Telepathic energy? What?
pic semi-related
Vortex-based mathematics
by definition, we wont know.
>>7934863
Some explanations, Anon?
Have any of you ever used your math and science knowledge in real life situations that didn't involve passing an exam or showing off your ego to low IQ plebs?
Be honest.
Yes. A number of times.
Not as often as I would like but almost every day. Calculus beyond the first half of second course was not though. Yet.
>showing off your ego to low IQ plebs
Do people seriously do that, i mean that's real pathetic.
Hi, can someone help me get a bit of an intuition on conditional probability?
My confusion arises from this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpwSGsb-rTs
Problem in the video:
You eat a poisonous mushroom, the antidote is to lick a species of frog, only the females give the antidote and Male frogs have a distinctive croaking sound. In front of you, you see a frog and do not know it's gender behind you, you hear the croak of a male frog, looking you see two frogs but don't know which made the noise.
Should you:
A: Lick the lone frog
B: Go to the two frogs where you know one is male (But do not know which one) and lick both.
My confusion:
So in the video, it says in the case of the two frogs you have 2/3 odds of licking a female, there are 3 possibilities, MF, FM or MM and two out of three have a female frog, I'm happy with this. But, suppose we were in the same situation but this time we see which of the two frogs croaked. In this case we lick one of the frogs knowing the other is male and only have 50% chance of living?
This does not seem right to me. I am shortsighted, suppose when I am wearing glasses I can tell which of the two frogs croaked, when I am not I cannot. In the case where I know one of them is male but not which my odds of survival are calculated to be around 66.6% , when I am wearing glasses though the probability is then 50% ? But me wearing glasses should not effect the gender of frogs, that's stupid.
>>7933830
>But, suppose we were in the same situation but this time we see which of the two frogs croaked. In this case we lick one of the frogs knowing the other is male and only have 50% chance of living?
the croaking does not tell you the sex of the second frog.
croacking= male = news that you already know
>>7933852
I just meant, if we saw which of the two frogs croaked, say the second one. We'd then lick the first frog only. The chance of this frog being female is then 50% (It can only be male or female and is independent of the other frog?)
But, why would seeing which of the two frogs croaked lower our survival rate from around 67% to 50%.
>Going around and licking frogs
What the hell is wrong with you?
How do I build up skills in explanation and deduction of certain effects in Physics with minimal time, its not something I can just memorise, and don't have a lot of time to sit down 8 hours and work, how do I maximise gain in skill based ability? A level physics here.
>>7933716
write shit down
not type, write with a pencil and your hand
and make sure you think about what you're writing down, if you don't understand something there's no point writing it down (unless it's explicitly something you don't need to understand)
this works for me, but people are different so it might not work for you. It depends what "style" learner you are.
>>7933716
>A level physics here.
Do problems. Lots of problems. It might help you more if you get a friend to do them as well then come together and both talk about how you arrived at your answers.
>>7933716
Bump
Aspiring geologist here
Is geology a meme science?
Do you guys consider it a hard science like physics?
>>7933126
It's rock hard
>>7933133
I'm rock hard
>>7933138
Ur mum is rock hard
Who /chem here?
Walking back and forth between the separate parts of the building sure is fun!
>>7932591
Organic chemistry masterrace!
>>7932591
Comp chem here. I don't walk...
>>7932614
Indeed!
Enamine trainee here
Books to learn a topic sufficiently to move onto another that builds from it.
Start with a calculus one then linear algebra (list prereqs) I will start with one that needs just your willingness and a 10th grade education
>>7932577
>10th grade education
>tfw
>>7932577
here's a list for shitty garbage mathematics:
Morris Klein Calculus an intuitive and physical approach -> Spivaks Calculus -> Apostol's Mathematical Analysis -> Conway's Complex Analysis -> Aliprantis and Burkinshaw's Principles of Real Analysis (which is really a measure theory book) -> Kolmogrov and Formin's Introduction to Real Analysis (which is really a functional analysis book and should be pretty piss easy at this point)
congratulations, now you know the ugliest math we've come up with and you can strive to avoid such filth in your research.
>>7932577
For Linear Algebra you only need to know how to write a proof to read Hoffman and Kunze which will teach you all the LA you need for abstract algebra and applied stuff. After taking at least ring and module theory, Roman's Advanced Linear Algebra has everything you'd need to do pretty much anything in, say, Algebra or Combinatorics.
A friend and I had a discussion:
who is better overall,
Lagrange (her opinion)
or
Euler (my opinion)
??
Take everything they've ever done into account.
>>7932277
>comparing euler anyone lesser than gauss
euler wins always, he is the best and most productive mathematician ever lived.
>>7932292
...right after Gauß.
>>7932311
[citation needed]
If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C then A ⊆ C.
Can anyone give a formal proof for it.
>>7931318
Anyone who understands what those symbols mean should be able to give a formal proof.
Take x in A, then x is in B, then x is in C, qed
>>7931318
You need to assume transitivity
That's it
what measures time?
>>7936703
This explains it,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvpbW7JRu0Q
Time can only be measured relative to something else.
Observers