Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 851. page

>>8677719
Go to sleep dude

>>8677719
it's like the third thread on this in a week.
You sure you didn't read that and forget?

>>8677753
I never come to /sci/, I was even debating whether I should post this here or not

it's a clickbait article to get ad money from brainlets

>>8677472
I don't know it seems pretty legit. If not, that's disappointing.

>>8677465
It seems to me the article did a perfect job of expressing dumb.
Can dumb be dumbed down?

pure math is autistic, don't worry too much about it

>>8677425
The set is a primitive. You can't define it rigorously.

File: russell2.jpg (36KB, 284x415px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 284x415px

in fact, I do worry a bit

how far is math from "muh feelings"?

isn't it all some kind of convention, in the end?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory

Yes. In fact you can draw a 4th dimensional object in 2D. In fact you can draw a 4 dimensional object in 1D, but it will just be a straight line.

>>8677361
>what is a projection?

File: 8-cell_net.png (127KB, 797x1071px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 797x1071px

A fourth dimensional shape called a tesseract depicted in 3 dimensions.

Nothing smaller than molecules or electrons comes into play for a human being. The electron part is even more of a technicality. Your brain and nervous system run at the speed of chemical and ion diffusion. Quantum effects do not apply to the operation, or consciousness, of a human or its brain.

>>8677033
Cool, evidence?

>>8677033
Also what do you think neuroscience has yet to answer.

>>8676951
It's as though there's some sort of group who sits around and comes up with what they think is the most unbelievable scenarios possible, and then markets them to idiots and laughs when they buy into them.

>See that chicken? That used to be a T-Rex!

>>8676965
>See that chicken? That used to be a T-Rex!
More like see that chicken? That used to be a small chicken-like dinosaur. You can tell due to anatomical similarities between dinosaurs and most birds such as the legs being positioned under the body rather than off to the side and feathers. We can even show that chickens used to have teeth via genes that would code for teeth but have been turned off in chickens.

File: I SURE DO LOVE MILK.jpg (63KB, 325x247px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 325x247px

>look it up
>dinosaurs are still reptiles
>but birds are dinosaurs
>mfw birds are reptiles
Bravo, science.

>>8676942
I hate this table shit for integration-by-parts because it's more limited, and it just enourages rote memorization instead of understanding.

File: naminami.png (43KB, 796x874px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 796x874px

What are you using them for?

This one was some probability distribution for simulating surface reflections in a raytracer program.

>>8676962
I want a collection of people's notes, not sure why but i like the mix between numbers and facts and people's personal flair through handwriting, layout styles etc.

File: VSS00093.jpg (1MB, 3000x2025px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2025px

Mercurio

File: Venus-Climate-Orbiter-Akatsuki_Venus.jpg (43KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1000x500px

Venus

File: Venuspioneeruv.jpg (2MB, 2008x2158px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2008x2158px

>>8677555

easy as shit. group theory is one of the first things you learn, when you start studying math

>>8676913

No. Groups are an extremely simple idea. Let's get a head start on your lesson.

A group is two things, put together, which satisfy a few basic properties. A group is a set (call it G), together with ONE binary operation (call it #) which operates on the elements of G. So this group, for example, can be written as (G,#), which is simply a notation which specifies the set and the one binary operation involved. Say you have any three elements a,b,c of G (any or all of which might be equal, or not). Then if the following four properties are satisfied, you have a group:

For all a, b, c in G,

a # b is also in G. Closure. The set is closed under the operation #, you'll never go outside of G by applying # to elements of G.

a # ( b # c ) = ( a # b ) # c . Associativity. When the operation is applied more than once, in some ambiguous order, then it does not matter in what order the instances of the operation are applied (it may easily happen, however, /that the order of the operands is still important, and must not be disturbed/).

There exists some e in G such that a # e = e # a = a. Identity. An identity element relative to the operation #, which leaves all elements unchanged when operated upon in connection with another element.

There exists some a-inverse, or a^-1, such that a # a^-1 = a^-1 # a = e. Inverses.

These four basic properties describe groups (as you could have easily gleaned by instead reading wiki), but depending on the text you read, one or two other properties concerning binary operations may also be explicitly listed. To understand algebraic structures, it is assumed that you have at least a naive understanding of "set" and "operation", and mashing the two together. Still, you are obliged to have a precise mathematical definition for what a binary operation /is/, and this is readily accomplished by mapping the cartesian product of a set with itself, onto that set.

>>8676949
thanks for taking the time to write this!!

I think I understand everything there apart from the associativity bit

If it does not matter what order the instances of the operation are applied, why is it that the operands order are still important and sometimes shouldn't be disturbed?

thanks again buddy

Taylor series ?

>>8676753
the equation in the picture is fucked up
it should be |(m - sqrt(m^2 + 1))/(2m + 2sqrt(m^2 + 1))| < epsilon. Obviously, (-1)*(m+sqrt(m^2 +1))*(m-sqrt(m^2 +1))/(2(m+sqrt(m^2 +1))^2) = 1/(2(m+sqrt(m^2 +1))^2) < epsilon. Clearly, 1/(2(m+sqrt(m^2 +1))^2) < 1/(2(2m)^2), so, choose m such that 1/(2(2m)^2) < epsilon, 8m^2>1/(epsilon), m>1/sqrt(8*epsilon). Proof: Take m>1/sqrt(8*epsilon), then 8m^2>1/(epsilon), 1/(2(2m)^2) < epsilon, 1/(2(m+sqrt(m^2+1))^2) < 1/(2(2m)^2)<epsilon, |(m-sqrt(m^2+1))*(m+sqrt(m^2+1))/(2(m+sqrt(m^2+1))^2)|<epsilon,
|(m-sqrt(m^2 +1))/(2(m+sqrt(m^2 +1)))|<epsilon
|(2m - (m + sqrt(m^2 +1)))/(2/(m+sqrt(m^2 +1)))|<epsilon
|(m/(m+sqrt(m^2+1))) - 1/2| < epsilon.

>>8676758
You mean developing the taylor series? That would rely on derivatives and we can only use that the reals are a complete totally ordered field and the definition of convergence of a sequence.

I think the main issue I'm having is that it has +1 on the radical, because if that was -1 I could square and add +1 to both sides. I guess I'll try to work out the problem with -1 under the radical and see exactly how and why that would change the problem and try to adapt my strategy.

If anyone has pointers, they're still more than welcome.

there isn't any unless you make a leap of faith

This question only exists if you believe in substance dualism. Substance dualism is full of holes, so you should just stop believing in it.

>>8676930
The best I've heard is that consciousness is the fabric of the universe and that our individual consciousnesses are like grains of sand taken away from a beach full of sand which is eternal knowledge i.e . God. When we die, we are no longer human and don't experience human emotions but our grain of sand ( individual consciousness) is cast back to the beach from whence it came and become one with god again.

We have no recollection of this because we must forget everything we have ever known in order to start a new life in a new brain in order to subjectively experience the universe

never happened, scientific method has a firm basis in occam's razor and immutable axioms you learned as a babby playing with blocks like 1+1=2

>>8676518
Define '1' and 'plus'

>>8676520
>Define 1
{{}}
>'plus'
'plus 1' mean the 'successor of', 'plus n' mean "the nth successor of"
one plus one is the successor of {{}} so {{{}}}

That's baby tier set theory, how old are you ?

The problem was not that particular planners made particular mistakes in the Soviet Union or in other planned economies. Whatever the mistakes made by central planners, there are mistakes made in all kinds of economic systems— capitalist, socialist, or whatever. The more fundamental problem with central planning has been that the task taken on has repeatedly proven to be too much for human beings, in whatever country that task has been taken on. As Soviet economists Shmelev and Popov put it:

>No matter how much we wish to organize everything rationally, without waste, no matter how passionately we wish to lay all the bricks of the economic structure tightly, with no chinks in the mortar, it is not yet within our power.

This lesson proved hard for many others who lived in a centrally planned economy to accept. Mikhail Gorbachev was not the only leader raised in the Soviet Union who found the market’s operations and results in the West baffling. During the last years of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin, later destined to become Russia’s first post-Communist leader, was equally struck by what he saw in a capitalist economy:

>A turning point in Yeltsin’s intellectual development occurred during his first visit to the United States in September 1989, more specifically his first visit to an American supermarket, in Houston, Texas. The sight of aisle after aisle of shelves neatly stacked with every conceivable type of foodstuff and household item, each in a dozen varieties, both amazed and depressed him.

>>8676447
Because Hayek's information problem exists dispite people's political desire to have communist and socialist command style economies.

>>8676464

>For Yeltsin, like many other first-time Russian visitors to America, this was infinitely more impressive than tourist attractions like the Statue of Liberty and the Lincoln Memorial. It was impressive precisely because of its ordinariness. A cornucopia of consumer goods beyond the imagination of most Soviets was within the reach of ordinary citizens without standing in line for hours. And it was all so attractively displayed. For someone brought up in the drab conditions of communism, even a member of the relatively privileged elite, a visit to a Western supermarket involved a full-scale assault on the senses.

When he returned to Moscow, Yeltsin spoke of the pain he felt after seeing in Houston the contrast between American and Soviet living standards. He described what he had seen in America to what was described as “a stunned Moscow audience.” Yeltsin’s aide said that the Houston supermarket experience destroyed the last vestiges of Yeltsin’s belief in the Communist system, setting the stage for his becoming the first leader of post-Communist Russia.

>>8676034
white holes dont exist.

>>8676040
Can someone with a brain answer me?

>>8676049
White holes are a vaguely defined, mostly absurd and frankly impossible concept.

>>8676008
Height is one of those traits that has several genes controlling it, so the height will be somewhere in between that of the mother and father, adjusting for sex.

>>8676008
You're not gonna have kids.

>>8676008
>Implying you will ever have children.