Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 215. page

Would you eat something pink?

>>9097953
Yes, I eat salmon.

>>9097951
Animals can't see colour, they can only see movement.

No.

You just wrote it down. So it has to exist.

Q.E.D

>>9091782
But it is defined as the number of women you've had sex with.

Ok, but first you'll need three eggs, half a cup of sugar and a small guitar.

>>9091784
And how would that work?

>>9091816
Don't ask stupid questions, do you want help or not??

It doesn't work though

File: IMG_3593.jpg (53KB, 320x247px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 320x247px

>>9100826
Could you elaborate?

File: IMG_3466.jpg (133KB, 1024x787px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1024x787px

No one interested in this, really? No conjectures, no nothing? You don't need to teach the board how to design and manufacture the aircraft in question. Just give me what you got.

Sometimes I hate my sexuality, because for the next few days after jerking it I don't have any motivation to do the things I normally love doing.

I propose that if mathematicians masturbate more than the avg person then masturbating makes you better at math.

>>9100773
If I jerk off too much there is definite fatigue and brain fog.

File: 51oXKWrcYYL.jpg (55KB, 668x1000px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 668x1000px

From pic related:

We are good intuitive grammarians — even quite small children intuit language rules. We can see that from mistakes. For example: “I maked it” rather than the irregular “I made it”.

In contrast those of us who have training and decades of experience in statistics often get statistical problems wrong initially.

Why should there be such a difference?

Our brains evolved for survival. We have a mind that is exquisitely tuned for finding things to eat and for avoiding being eaten. It is a horrible instrument for finding truth. If we want to get to the truth, we shouldn’t start from here.

A remarkable aspect of your mental life is that you are rarely stumped. … you often have answers to questions that you do not completely understand, relying on evidence that you can neither explain nor defend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyM3d4gQGhM

Mathematics is the practice of reasoning using known (or assumed) things.

Statistics is the practice of reasoning using data generated by unknown (or not completely known) processes.

Math is a purely deductive exercise: Its entire edifice is built using only a handful of axioms and the rules of deductive logic. If you accept these, then -- assuming there are no logical inconsistencies -- the entirety of mathematical knowledge is incontestable.

Stats also uses deduction (it has its own structured, beautiful theorems, such as CLT), but induction is just as important. At its heart, induction is about using data to provide evidence to support or refute some hypothesis, a claim about the real world (which is noisy and can't be summed up by axioms). There are no such claims in math.

I like to say that math is the logic of certainty, while statistics is the logic of uncertainty.

Statistics is also relatively new, and predicting the future via mathematical inference or probability is definitely not an innate ability in anything, whereas counting and adding is something almost all animals can do.

File: statmeem.jpg (83KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x500px

A probabilist, a statistician and a mathematician sit in a cafe across from a parked sedan. They see five people get into the car. After a minute passes, six people exit the car. The probabilist says that the event is non measurable since the sigma algebra of the car accounts only for 5 seats. The statistician says that six people walking out qualifies as a significant statistic against the null hypothesis that there were no people inside the car to begin with. The mathematician says that if another person were to enter the car now, then there would be exactly zero people in the car.

It's funny you say that because I had the exact same issue a few years ago when I lived in my grandparents house in Hungary. I do not know the composition of the pipes but the U section of tubing immediately below the sink somehow had a hole rot
through the bottom portion. My only guess is that some sediment from my urine impeded it from flowing freely like a regular fluid. Over the years it just rotted out the tube.

>>9100006
fascinating thank you anon, was it lead pipe or some other material? iron? plastic?

>>9099974
I have to ask, why were you pissing in a sink for a year lol?

>>9099969
>real emotional reasons please
lol what

Pseudo-intellectual. Profits from other people's work rather than doing his own.

>>9099969
his skin colour is darker than mine

Didn't an american just modify a human embryo not long ago? So, a decade at most, I'd say.

>>9099558
The science is here, the laws aren't.

>>9099566
It will probably be hyped in the media under "designer babies" and "flaws are what gives us personality" at first, so that would make it difficult. But if they just go with the realistic angle of "will allow us to combat genetic diseases", there would hopefully be will to adjust it.

They dont.

They don't mean the same thing actually. The first statement says that it is necessary for the function to be continuous for it to be integrable. That means if you take some random function and want to know if you could integrate it you need to check if it is continuous. If it is not, you can't integrate it since that it needs to be for it to be integrable. But the first statement doesn't say that continuity is sufficient for integrability, maybe the function needs to satisfy some other condition besides continuity. According to the first statement it may be possible to find some continuous function that isn't integrable, it doesn't specify if continuity on its own is enough to tell if a function is integrable.

The second statement on the other hand says that if the function is continuous it will always be integrable which is the same as what the third statement says.

>>9099550
Yeah, I fucked up that example, but in general:
>if P then Q
>Q, provided that P
>For P, it is necessary that Q
all mean the same thing, and it's really confusing.

>>9099389
It's ayys

>>9099389
Probably not. Last I heard it was dimming again and they were running spectroscopic analysis on it, not sure how that turned out or if any results have been published yet.

Just a jupiter equivalent swamp gas giant. Move along now. Move along.

File: 1497973599441.jpg (151KB, 1111x1080px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1111x1080px

>Everything everybody does is the result of their brain chemistry.

At this very moment, we are living inside the stomach of a dragon.

(Anyone can make empty claims out of their ass. If you want people to take your claims seriously, show your reasoning behind the conclusions.)

File: IMG_2359.jpg (34KB, 500x322px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x322px

>>9099308
Current theory is exactly this, brain chemistry - specifically dopamine

>1950's, thorazine and haldol gets FDA approval
>D2 receptor antagonist
>lower dopaminergic 2 receptor activity
>hallucinations, delusions, agitation symptoms down

>>coincidentally, low dopamine contributes to Parkinsonian symptoms
>>Parkinson's is a deficiency in dopaminergic production in substantia nigra
>gross and fine motor movements affected
>pill roll movements, possible tongue fasciculations, rigidity, cog wheel arm movements, decreased functional status

>people taking meds to change their brain chemistry for psychotic patients become Parkinsonism type patients
>take meds to control brain chemistry to reduce symptoms
>new drugs target different dopaminergic receptors, serotonin receptors, GABA, and others
>meds also prescribed that alter neurotransmitter levels to control side effects

We are treading along a thin tight rope, where the best case scenario is trying to fit square pegs in circle holes as little behaviors or symptoms that are possibly normal are attempted to be fixed with drugs

>>9099324

So people with high amounts of dopamine (that we're unable to prove) don't have free will? But everyone else does?

Why would you study something that bores you?

>>9099253
I have a year left in my current degree (Psych)
Minor in mathematics

I want to switch fully into math.
Is it worth? Or should I just finish my current degree and apply to a masters program in math?

>>9099255
mandatory for highschool and beyond

Wikipedia puts average daily solar irradiance at 21.6MJ per square meter. Multiplying by the surface area of the Earth and dividing by two (since only half the planet is facing the sun at a time), we get 5.48x10^21 Joules.

A kilogram of antimatter would annihilate with a kilogram of matter, releasing energy according to e=mc^2. For the total 2 kilograms of mass, we get 1.78x10^20 Joules.

So by these estimates, it would take roughly 30 kg of antimatter to equal the energy the Earth receives from the Sun in a day.

>>9098965
The solar energy intercepted by the Earth at any given time is around 173,000TW (a calculation using the solar constant, radius of the earth and that of the sun)..

Energy produced by 1kg of antimatter reacting with matter is around 600MJ (easy calculation of e=mc^2)

So in an extremely tiny fraction of a second, the solar energy wins. You should be able to work out the numbers to break even (divide the power of solar energy by the nergy of the kilogram of antimatter to get how many times more you need for an equality during one second)

>>9098988
>Energy produced by 1kg of antimatter reacting with matter is around 600MJ (easy calculation of e=mc^2)

1 kg of matter + 1 kg of antimatter = 1.8*e17 J

E=mc^2
E=2 kg*9e16 J/kg
E=1.8e17 J

>>9098864
kys

>>9098864
>only observed over a few centuries
Only existed significantly over a few centuries. Are you trying to be misleading?

>predictions constantly fail
Which predictions constantly fail? We've been accurately predicting global surface temps for several decades.

>the science is settled
So gravity is not settled? You disbelieve gravity exists as described by physics?

>>9098864
The Climate:
>relatively the same since the dawn of humanity until now
>based on fundamental physical constants
>simple equations govern most useful cases
>complex models allow us to predict the effect of various climate drivers
>effects are easily observed and measured
>
>
>still spending millions of dollars at figuring out how it works