Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 456. page

>>8971085
It's a black hole you faggot. Get your head out of your ass.

>>8971088
http://www.gizmodo.in/indiamodo/NASA-finding-bolsters-Indian-theory-on-black-hole/articleshow/49913583.cms

Evidence trumps shitheads on the internet.

>>8971085
Makes sense. Always wondered if that could happen myself but hadn't cared to learn GR. So why are black holes (or ECOs) black? Is the light being redshifted beyond detection?

>>8971064
LAMMPS.

>>8971064
Teach yourself C and program the PDEs yourself.

Only reliable solution.

>>8971080
Hahahaha no, you have to use fortran not C.

Also,I make $650,000 a yr so you can platter your sister up for me okay.

>>8970838
The same reason sci hates biology people

Accounting is literally accounting for things other poeple did. It is glorified grunt work. The math in accounting doesnt go past the knowledge a 16 year old should have. ffs i mean if something requires algebra max is not rigorous.

At least bio people take calculus.

>>8970839
And that has absolutely nothing to do with being an accountant, but rather selling yourself as a business.

Finance is very much glorified because the math can be rigorous, but in accounting it pretty much never is.

>>8970703
give a blackboard talk

>>8970705
not an option at this university, have to write a beamer presentation in LaTeX to accompany your thesis.

>>8970703
what did you expect to get out of coming here? go away and do it

>>8969496
No, you are the only one here.

Do the Jews have a plan for this world?

>>8969496
you can't be scientific and believe in pseudoscience my friend

Why do you read the daily mail...

>>8967962
Because it was the first link on google.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/16/the-uaes-ambitious-plan-to-build-a-new-city-on-mars/

>>8967641
You think conservative Muslims believe the Earth is flat? Where did u learn this? I've never heard of that before.

>>8966411
OH HELL NO. PROJECT ORION IS FORBIDDEN BY MULTIPLE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty

BESIDES, ORBITAL RINGS WITH SMALL NUMBERS OF SKYHOOKS, IE THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY BUILD, HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN TO BE STABLE FOR LARGE PERTURBATIONS

NOT HAPPENING KIDDO.

Liberals will go apeshit of rtgs and will probably suicide bomb themselves on launch pads if you mention NERVA and you are talking about motherfucking nuclear pulse propulsion?

File: 1481818160909.jpg (92KB, 800x999px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 800x999px

>>8966430
if we can build one skyhook, what stops us from building a second skyhook? or a third? or however many we need to keep it stable

this isn't a video game, where you are arbitrarily restricted to a specific number until we complete a quest or some shit

why do you shit up every thread screeching how things are impossible, when the solution is so fucking simple that a 10 year old could figure it out

File: proof.png (30KB, 659x268px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 659x268px

>>8962385
I am trying to understand the solution to this exercise.

I think I get it all the way until the end. How can you guarantee that you can choose such an [math] x_0 [/math]? Can you even guarantee that the o(1) term will be smaller than b-a?

That said, if someone could explain the entire argument that would be good too because... maybe the reason I don't get that final part is because I am not truly getting the parts before.

>>8962412
>Can you even guarantee that the o(1) term will be smaller than b-a?
doesn't that follow immediately from the definition of little o? i.e. for all epsilon>0 the o(1) term is eventually bounded above in absolute value by epsilon, so you can just take epsilon= (b-a)/2

File: littleo.png (25KB, 631x283px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 631x283px

>>8962418
I didn't... realize. Little o was defined in this very chapter and I guess I haven't had time to digest.

But I think I get it. If f(x) = o(1) then that means that the limit as x approaches infinity of f(x)/1 equals 0. And therefore the limit as x approaches infinity of f(x) is 0. And that means that functions in the o(1) class get arbitrarily small.

Holy shit fuck. This was trivial. I can finally see

>>8962292
6000 years. When you have a robust and comprehensive worldview, you don't have to make up idiotic excuses for why reality doesn't fit your shit worldview.

Not in the slightest. They clearly have their abode in a very particular ecological niche and have there not diversified much over the years.

Meanwhile, the species who would become humans were forced to adapt to changing conditions.

This is just basic evolution.

FUCK those things.

No I mean for real.

A one kilogram copper ingot, a cars suspension spring and 2 car batteries

moar about inaccessible door

>>8973047
Powertool and a hammer.

Supposed answer:

http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/wi00/cse105/hw5sol.pdf go to problem 4(b)

Doesnt make sense though, from what they claim, my Language L = {0} can be mapping reducible to its complement L' which is an infinite set consisting of everything apart from 0.

Other things in L' as mentioned in the OP are impossible to map to, so how is this a valid mapping reducible function?

anybody? willing to paypal for an explanation just trip your post

>>8972980
The answer is false, but youre answer is incorrect.

I don't think you understand the language thing quite yet. Your L(TM) = {0}, but it mapping reductions are for all instances of the languages, not just mapping accepted strings to accepted strings. So we can construct a mapping reduction from L to solve L' by just negating yes/no.

A simple counter example would be to propose a TM that accepts all strings over a language, such the it's compliment is empty

File: 08PCLqB.png (132KB, 312x312px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 312x312px

>>8972659
Sum of interior angles of a five sided polygon is 540 degrees. Sum of interior angles of a four sided polygon is 360 degrees.

Suppose the answer is 90 degrees. Then each angles has 18 degrees. Which means the quadrilateral's final angle has degree 360 - 18 - 18 - 18 = 306. But 5*306 != 540. So it's not 90.

Suppose it's 120. Then each angle has 24 degrees. Which means the final angle has degree 360 - 24 - 24 - 24 = 288. But 5*288 != 540. So it's not 120.

Suppose it's 360. Then each angle has 72 degrees. Which means the final angle has degree 360 - 72 - 72 - 72 = 144. But 144*5 != 540.

Hm, so perhaps it's none of the above. The goal is to find an interior angle x in the five-sided polygon such that 5*x = 540. This means x is 108. But then to satisfy the four-sided interior sum of angles, 360 - 108 = 252. And 252/3 = 84.

Therefore each of the marked angles is 84 degrees. And so 84*5 = 420 degrees

The answer is 420 degrees

>>8972659
I don't know. There I answered correctly when do I start?

>>8972659
120

Congratulations, you've barely scratched the surface of Nietzschean thought

>>8972448
Ummmm how is that at all what Nietzschean thoughht is about? It's about creating your own morality not about living your same life FOREVER

>>8972448
>e
you don't know anything about nietzschean thought

>>8972409
You're already suffering forever

>>8972415
What about when i die?

>>8972409
I think your life, consciousness and senses will "stop" too.

>>8972402
Shitty energy density.

>>8972456
They probably said that about Uranium in the industrial revolution too though, when it wouldn't power their steam engines.

>>8972581
Difference being we can measure the energy density today, and it's something on the order of [math] 10^{-9} ~ \text { J m^{-3} } [/math] while Urainum has an energy density on the order of [math] 10^{9} ~ \text { MJ m^{-3} } [/math]. I don't see how we'd ever be able to extract a useful amount from the vacuum.