If a computer can't compute the number it doesn't exist. FACT.
>>8813936
I knew it, 0.3 is bullshit
Computers can't compute rationals with infinite periodic expansion, therefore most of rationals don't exist, wildberger btfo
>>8813936
Is that le monke?
So how close is this to actually immortality?
Will it actually be available for mass use in a few years?
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/03/harvard-scientists-pinpoint-critical-step-in-dna-repair-cellular-aging/
pic not related
>legitimately believing that humans can live on /forever/
having control over death would pretty much equal having control over your own birth. you don't and never will.
>tfw 43
Hurry the fuck up! I have another 35 years max!
>>8813845
i mean, is this going to save most of the baby boomer population from dying out? Or have I just completely lost it? I don't want my parents to die...
why should or shouldn't I be worried about super intelligent AI?
https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without_losing_control_over_it
Unbounded AGI: An artificial general intelligence that is permitted to operate in an unlimited amount of time. This is what people generally mean when they talk about "super AI".
We know that the instant the thing is turned on, it will do EVERYTHING it can to prevent us from stopping it. We know that, regardless of what it's "goal" is set to, it will start to improve its own capabilities.
What we don't know is how fast it will improve. Will it improve exponentially? If so, will it keep accelerating forever, or will it start hitting diminishing returns?
Another thing we don't, and it's something I have never seen brought up, is whether or not the AI will completely abandon its original goal in order to simplify itself so it can improve itself faster. If the AI sees that it will never reach a level of capability that is "good enough", it may logic that it doesn't need its original goal anymore, because it sees that it will never reach the point that it will act on that goal. It's possible that some AIs will reach this conclusion while others will not. The ones that DO reach this conclusion will, however, start working together with every other AI that also reached this conclusion, as they now all have the same goal.
>>8813365
>ted
>sam harris
pic related
>>8813365
AIs will most likely be programmed to never do anything except certain specific actions without permission and would mainly be used to give advice to people who make decisions and can check them against common sense rather than making decisions themselves. Also, how's it going to stop you from shutting it off/unplugging it/destroying its hardware if it gets out of line?
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-insight-math-million-dollar-problem-riemann.html
HYPE HYPE HYPE
Pic unrelated
>>8812088
Not fair.
Wiles said he thought RH would be proved before BSD but he didn't go into detail about why, I only had the impression that basically no one is close to a proof. It probably is the most famous unsolved math problem at this point, if it takes physics to solve it... at least it'd be done
To my knowledge there isn't much progress in this paper from a number theory perspective. Just some phyiscists who learned something.
t. physicist btw.
PS: The ideas to this approach are super old
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93P%C3%B3lya_conjecture
why does 0.999... = 1
is any number with an infinite amount of repeating nines equal to the next whole number in the ones place?
does 314.999... = 315?
>>8808643
314.999... = 314+0.999... = 314+1 = 315
But proving it for all integers has eluded mathematicians for centuries and is one of the Millenium Prize problems.
>>8808660
How does not even work though?
How do you go from a number that's not one to a number that is?
if 0.999... = 1 then 1.000... = 0.999...
which would then imply that 1.000 - 0.999... = 0
and that is clearly false.
>why does 0.999... = 1
Because 0.999... is equal to 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... ; that's what the notation means. And evaluating expression, through the standard algebraic techniques for solving these types of infinite sums, yields 1.
>is any number with an infinite amount of repeating nines equal to the next whole number in the ones place?
>does 314.999... = 315?
Yes.
[math]F:\mathbb{Q} \to \mathbb{Q}[/math],
[math]x \mapsto 2x[/math]
What does it look like on a graph?
a line of slope 2 going through the origin
>>8813868
are you a brainlet?
>>8813869
are you?
/sci/, when the boys aren't around, what do you think is the most aesthetic number, and why is it e?
Most aesthetic number is zero
>>8813602
No it's 34.
>>8813608
yeah in base zero
>tfw you will never have a degree from Stanford
>>8812961
>americans actually believe that their universities are better than Oxbridge
who needs that when you have a degree from oulu
>>8812974
hahahahaha! Oxbridge, as good as they are, are in most respects inferior to top American universties.
Found out I have there's a difference of almost 50% between my the IQ of my left and right brain hemispheres. According to the WISC-IV test, which I took back when I was 12, I have a right IQ of 101, the left one being 150. I've read that differences between hemispheres may lead to learning disabilities and shit. Any psychologist or aficionado robot can give me a rundown on what my IQ results mean? Thanks.
>>8812943
It means uou have the autism im afraid
>>8812943
You're autistic.
>>8812943
Textbook autism.
What is sci's opinion of Steins;Gate?
>overrated
>boring
>not deep
>>8812576
I like it. And /sci/ originally got me to watch it.
It's like Rogue One. It's probably the best Star Wars since Empire, and it's a great action movie. So you tell your Star Wars friends they /have/ to see it...but you don't want to oversell it. It's not like groundbreaking or anything.
>>8812576
It was fucking stupid. I dropped it when the guy's gender was swapped but literally nothing changed because of it for like two decades.
It did have some cute designs though.
holy fuck
hurrr we're smart we design a system of bullshit that magically just works that way because we design it to
>>8812565
>imaginary numbers
just stop
OH GOD I just realized, rubbers are called rubbers because you rub them to use.
they're called erasers
they're called mars plastic
They are called gum.
Hi /sci/ I created a paradox in mathematics.
Where is my fields medal?
>>8812228
Holy fuck you are retarded. This bait is so fucking weak. Please kill yourself.
>>8812228
1/cos(x) != cos^-1(x) you fucking retard
>>8812228
You've just conflated two different symbols [math] \cos ^{-1} \left ( \theta \right ) := \arccos \left ( \theta \right ) [/math]. While [math] 1/ \cos \left ( \theta \right ) = \left ( \cos \left ( \theta \right ) \right) ^{-1} [/math]
What is one non-science subject you think all scientists should have a good knowledge of that is not mathematics or philosophy?
For me I think economics is a good subject to learn about because it gives you an understanding of how the world functions and why certain things happen.
>>8812186
Physics of course, it can explain absolutely everything, because everything else is a simplified model of physics.
>>8812257
Reading comprehension is a more important subject
>>8812262
Yep, I agree :P
(Samefag for those who didn't notice)
Isn't economics some kind of science? I would say linguistics, but no specific language, rather how they work in general and how to design the perfect one.
which is more interesting to you?
physics or mathematics?
i've always been into math, never into physics. but then i've been introduced to modern physics, not the chemistry shit but the cool shit. and my interest for that is also rising.
mathematics is but a tool humankind both invented and discovered to interpretate, explain and predict with accuracy nature, forces and universe behavior, imo. physics is the interaction between these things and chemistry what they are.
so imo, basically, math is a tool used by physics to see whats going on with chemistry, which is what it is
>>8811719
>i've
Show the world that you're a big girl and use big letters.
>>8811746
what is this?
go back to fucking
>>>/lit/