Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 2161. page

he didn't shitpost on/ sci/

>>7653665

Bumping this because I'm curious and I want in on the meme. I saw "Von Neumann universes" and my nose started bleeding a bit. Conceptually that wasn't even a a very difficult idea (very very large finite numbers related to cardinality or similar), I just wasn't familiar with the jargon/motivation.

File: John_von_Neumann_ID_badge.png (154KB, 579x615px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 579x615px

He helped win the war by making the atomic bomb

>>7653664
That episode creeped me out when I was younger

>>7653814
you are not alone

brutal atmospheric slamming blackened death jazz with some post-baroque influences

>>7653612
John Conway reminds me of Jared Harris as Professor Moriarty.

>>7653612
Edward Witten

Newton da Costa.

Well, it depends what kind of teleportation, if it's transporter to transporter it's relatively easy. You vaporise the guy transmit his make up at the speed of light and 3d print him at the other side.

Transporter to anywhere else you need to break a few laws.

>>7653552
If we somehow could ignore physics we could build you a teleporting device and you could teleport from glory hole to glory hole and get all that dick you crave, OP

I mean like fast travel in games

Social science sure.
As far as I know sociology is just psychology on a large scale.

>>7653546
No

File: scithread.jpg (20KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x332px

>>7653546
No because it lacks a predictive aspect in a quantitative sense. Chemists and physicists can predict outcomes down to multiple decimal points.

Sociologists cannot accurately predict outcomes due to there being to many extraneous factors involved. They should be treated the same as the tarot card readers and astrologers.

>>7653514
>who is Euler
>Legendre
>Jacobi
>fermats little theorem

just off the top of my head from number theory

>>7653514
matlab

I thought that Euler can't help. phi(375) = 200
4^200 mod 375 = 1 ;p

>>7653502
You do see in 3d. You have two inputs, one from each eye. The brain isn't a rasterizer, it doesn't blend into a flat image. All the preprocessing it does includes that depth information that's an inherent consequence of binocular vision.

Is anyone else having trouble with these picture captchas? Do I really have to give it the right answer 3-10 times every single post?

>>7653517
You do not see in 3d.

>>7653527
stop b& a knob n proov it m8

>>7653497
oh, ignore that 5 V on the PSU, that's just the drawing program being dumb

No? No one?

OK, I'll go and cry in the corner.

By myself. All alone.

;_;

The provided information is not enouth to help you more but telling you the standard emv stuff.

some people are just trash m8

our pets hold more value to us than them

>>7653481
an animal that bring me joy is worth more to me than a human I have nothing to do with who brings me no joy.

The world has be comedy weird

go to bed mom. i'll be waiting for you ;)

File: images.jpg (8KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 275x183px

>>7653460

u pice of dirt

File: Fig S-2 Homogenizaton Corrections.png (44KB, 579x449px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 579x449px

>>7653428

>>7644812
>>And here's the real kicker. What was it you said?
>>7644812
>>the algorithm does not distinguish between rural and urban temp stations...homogenization will normalize to urban stations, Read: add UHI.
>Well it turns out the authors had thought of that possibility, just like good scientists who care about robust methodology should.

Really. Why did you ignore the supplementary material?
Pic related. Fig S-2 in the Supplementary material of the paper, and Smoking gun #2. This graph supposedly "proves" that the homogenization adjustments don't bring in UHI, because using just rural temps works just as well as also using urban temps. But is this true? Remember homogenization "adjusts" the station temp value to the gengeral "trend." But the trend of the majority of rural stations is negative (see the figure for randomly chosen rural temps). Yet the chosen paired rural stations do not have a negative trend. Why? The algorithm looks at all stations (urban and rural) to decide the "correct" trend. In recent years, large numbers of rural stations have been eliminated, there are more and more UHI tainted stations. Thus the trend is UHI tainted, so homogenization chooses the "correct" rural station, the one that most closely matches UHI urban stations. Tampering data with UHI by proxy is still tampering data with UHI.

Overall, using UHI tainted data to define the trend is nothing but Goal-seeked algorithms; it's bad science at best. This fundamental flaw is the hallmark of data tampering. Something a "bad scientist" would do.

http://api.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/asset/v1/doi/10.1029%2F2012JD018509/asset/supinfo%2FHausfatheretalUSHCNUHIsuppliment.docx?l=Cgg2pVVsCMwBVhXLGZM9QYtwQymcmLot19MtWA19H9zPqhrO5lDdMtjRWWQgcm4kWEUZgDG01aDA%0Aqhdk5uEDWsVDIYqqt4qi3VXDQQsjJI8%3D

File: TOB Test Data.gif (22KB, 664x541px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 664x541px

>>7653437
>>7644812
The NOAA/Zeke are using ridiculous TOB adjustments which yield physically impossible results for the more distant past. See pic for an example of actually deleting the data with bad TOB (reset in afternoon); the correct approach to dealing with data errors, you remove them. The rate of warming is miniscule. (Do you seriously think that in 1930, Sally Brown and her other urbanites always reset their thermometer right before the hottest time of the day?).
>nb4 evil denier graph
Try facts and logic for once.

File: NOAA doubled warming.png (274KB, 1016x774px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1016x774px

>>7653439
>>7644812
Zeke and company rely on general definitions of rural and urban areas instead of looking at the actual conditions (micro-environments) of the temperature stations. The latter is what really counts. If the station is close to an air conditioner belching out hot air, it doesn't matter if the station is supposedly a "rural" station. Accounting for micro-environments is what a "good scientist" would do. See pic. Notice that the specific UHI, nearly doubles the temperature growth rate. And NOAA data tampering makes it even worse!

>>7653421
there will never be another einstein, computers are doing everything now

then skynet will come and, puff, donzo

Terrence Tao. Guy is an absolute freak.

>>7653433
witnessed

maybe some teams? the guys at the LHC? The ones putting a rover on the Mars?

>>7653303
Orange is from the nineties?

I thought it was invented by the Irish in the 16th century.

>>7653308
Pretty sure nature invented it much earlier.
And the universe itself a lot earlier.

>>7653308
No I meant these as fairly seperate questions, Orange was just used a lot in the nineties. The point was if anyone has ideas as to why random things like that would trigger a sort of sadness with no real reason why.

In dark conditions my friend

Bump for interest.

>>7653271
sea cucumbers are secondarily bilateral and not cephalized

I'll try to think of something

>>7653262
>Why do we learn shit like integration by parts when computers can solve that shit just as well?

who do you think is programming the computers?

>>7653265
Creating software for symbolic math is a pretty small niche

>>7653262
Because part of understanding how to develop efficient logic is understanding what makes a solution process inefficient in the first place.