Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 101. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
Any doctors here that have experience with this organization? Kinda curious what actually occurs beyond the videos we have access to.
>>8119400
>Kinda curious what actually occurs
You go to some bombed out shithole and live in a hospital for 2 months, working to stitch the civilians and soldiers back together all the time in addition to vanilla healthcare like deliveries, infections and so on.
It's a workaholic vacation.
You get an ATGM to the face.
>>8119407
Do doctors get IED'd?
Can anyone recommend some good introductory neurology books? I've taken a few bio and o-chem classes, so it need not be too babby tier. Thanks.
Bumping your thread to ask for a babby-tier neuroscience book.
>tfw try to study a bit on my own
>realize I don't know/remember enough basic bio/chem to gain full understanding of basics
;_;
>>8119398
Start by learning some basic bio/chem then.
>>8119402
Well what are some good books for that?
I heard about Campbell Biology being very good for basics in Bio (unless someone recommends something else). What about chem?
Do we know why "deep" colors like in gems and gold are attractive?
I was thinking maybe it's something to do with water, good, clean water being transparent or translucent
Because we decided they are.
In a world where grey is a rare colour and only expensive materials have it, it would count as an attractive/beautiful colour.
>>8119296
Grey is not rare you idiot. What are fucking rocks, what is granite, what colour are almost all pyrolitic compounds (stuff left over after burning). You're statement is dumb
>>8119271
culture. good luck finding your way out
Professors being assholes for year 1-4
Year 5 when it is time to apply to phd programmes they are suddenly your best friend. What the fuck is going on /sci/?
They want to be friendly so you stick around for longer
Is it really that hard to see that
>>8119183
>autism is off the charts
>>8119183
You chose to study what is literally their life. You will be among their colleagues now. You have joined their ranks.
http://news.mit.edu/2016/mario-brothers-hard-complexity-class-pspace-0601
This is trending on Facebook and while I find it fascinating figuing out the complexity of solving the game, normies are spouting that the game is harder than math problems.
DigitalTrends: "SCIENTISTS PROVE PLAYING ‘SUPER MARIO BROS.’ CAN BE AS HARD AS COMPLEX MATH"
MissOpen: "Study Says Super Mario Bros. Can Be as Hard as Solving Complex Math Problems"
Vocativ: "How Playing Super Mario Bros Can Be Harder Than Calculus"
Gamenesia: "A...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4LbPv6nMzs
I support the glorification of simple, menial tasks as complex intellectual problems. As an autist it increases my social status and sexual fitness.
Not really comfortable with normal sexual situations, though, so I'm really hoping this promotes some more autism-compatible sexual activities.
>>8119120
People like getting pat on the back for something they've already accomplished and it's that simple. The fact is that the MIT article is worded to come across as "If you've beaten Super Mario, you're practically a mathematician" rather than comparing the two or simply saying "Super Mario is of comparable difficulty to some complex math, if you've done the former you could probably do the latter". That alone says a lot about the public attitude towards math, the public attitude...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I did some pointless thinking about randomness and order, how it fits in with our universe, and possible explanations on the origins of said universe. I will just post them here because I really want counter points if anyone has them... well... from people who have a better understanding.
Life was 100% destined to happen mathmatically, and, depending on the existence of a real "free will", possibly beyond.
Let me use an example:
I have a billards table and on that table I have 23 billard balls. If I hit one ball (assuming no one reaches over and interferres) it will bounce off
of other balls, which will bounce off others, and so on. If I sat down and knew the exact physical properties of the environment, the balls, the force
in which the initial ball moved, etc. etc. I could, with enough time and energy, calculate exactly where the balls would end up at any given moment, which
balls would hit which, hard hard they would hit, and eventually even the end. I could, in fact, calculate the future as long as I hit the initial ball EXACTLY
the way I calculated for. The rest, after that, would not be random.
Multiply that... keep multiplying until you give up and then some more, you now have the ability to calculate from the moment the Big Bang happened until life
presented itself. Each atom bouncing around, colliding, merging, breaking, etc as physics would have dictated, eventually forming larger objects that physics
would dictate and the movements and collisions that came with that. On and on. Because each was not random nor had any capability of being random. Each performed
exactly the way it would be expected.
Why life and WHAT life?
Because, assuming that any form of life has any real ability to act randomly, EVER, you could no longer calculate 100% accurately. This is not saying that any life
does, but until something that is really random enters the scene you could, in theory, calculate infinitely and determine the outcomes. As long as you could
calculate before hand or faster than the events. If no form of life can act randomly (what I will call "free will") you could calculate on and on until "the end".
At this moment, Earth life would...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
IF Life can be truly random:
I am using this a lot, I know. I use this because, despite what we know, we BELIEVE life can act outside of predictability. We WANT life to have just one kernel of
governence over its actions that is not pre-determined. Who am I to say NO? If we do then we are more special than anything that can ever be created. We have a "soul"
of sorts that allows us to behave in ways unpredictable by anything else. With that comes a purpose. Not for us, perhaps, but a purpose. An event that was destined to
create randomness from pure order would not be an event to take lightly, and could have very possibly happened for that exact reason. (Yes, I am touching on
a creator or creators, etc. and I will at other points in this.) We could be mere scientific observations, exist to populate a multiverse (something that would not exist
without randomness), simply be a dimensional random number generator.
IF Life can not be random:
So far, as far as my knowledge goes, nothing is random. We act in a way that is predictable if you take in account all of the existing variables. Therefore, I was
destined to write this. Which means we follow the rules set forth by our universe, we can accomplish our same thoughts and feelings, observations and behaviors
with extremely advanced AI. Which is pretty much what we are. This would go a long way in showing that we are perhaps a simulation, perhaps for an advanced being
that simply wants to play with something. Life could be just the next building block on the way to randomness, or a purpose, first the big bang... then life... then
[insert next step here] and so on until the purpose is achieved. The same way in which we build circuits to build devices to build software to build AI. We do as
expected and eventually we will have the desired results.
Why the fuck do professors think this is appropriate for a solution to a problem? Like what the fucking fuck.
>>8119013
Everyone look out guys, OP's been asked to "work".
>>8119017
>being autistic is called working.
>>8119020
What about it?
Just get used to it, we had to fucking do brainless euclides algorithm when doing diofantique equations in our head.
I'm a contract researcher in manufacturing robotics with a mechanical engineering degree, do you guys think its worth learning neural nets? My programming is ok.
>>8118979
Neural networks fall inside a family of algorithms and techniques called machine learning. There is also a more recent subset of algorithms and techniques called deep learning that focuses on a class of algorithms known as deep neural networks.
Machine learning in general is a topic that lives at the intersection of artificial intelligence and data science (depending on who you ask they will classify it as one or the other).
It may be useful to you to learn some basic machine learning but it is probably...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Robots have little to do with neural nets.
Unless you're working on something weird, like a mail sorter.
But go ahead. It's fun an relatively simple.
>http://www.deeplearningbook.org/
>>8118979
i think in robotics they have been using a lot of temporal difference learning which is part of reinforcement learning. if im not mistaken this is how the atlas robot from Boston dynamic robot learned to walk. (educated guess) there might be much more ways also using neural networks or combinations.
Just learned about HeLa cells online today. I've seen various figures on how many cells have been produced over time, and regardless of what that number really is, I'm just curious where all the matter for these cells come from. It seems crazy enough that cells could reproduce indefinitely, let alone where all the material comes from. I mean, if they are just simply dividing, wouldn't they get too small to be functional? Note that I only have rudimentary knowledge on biology.
>>8118922
Matter comes from the soil and the atmosphere, energy comes from the sun or geothermal vents
wtf. they take nutrients from their surroundings.
Other cells
Hey civil engineer fags and structural scientists, can this be constructed with medieval technology? How long can it stands after being built with such technology? 1 year? 2 years?
Depends if dragons can be used to forge the statute.
Bronze Age Greeks did it in real life.
>>8118904
No they did not.
Have there been any real attempts to create a hybrid besides the one done in 1920's Soviet Russia?
I believe a successful one was carried out 9 months before you were born anon...
>>8118705
fpbp
top bantz
>>8118705
fbpb
top zozzle
Is there a difference? Please be honest.
>>8118618
What the hell is "historical science"? Do you mean difference between natural science and the study of humanities?
>>8118624
It's a term used by creationists to create a mental barrier in the sciences that evolution can't cross.
Basically: "We can't know what happened millions of years ago, so we'll use this book to tell us how it was. You don't have to worry about evolution, that doesn't apply to anything, you can throw it out."
Or: "it's your way or God's way."
>>8118624
It's the creationist way of saying "you weren't there so you can't know it's true" which applies to, as just one example, carbon dating. However, the bible is still infallible. It's pretty logical.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/everyday-quantum-computing-is-years-off-so-why-are-some-firms-already-doing-quantum-encryption/
>Scientists have shown that it can take current computers two years to factor a 232-digit prime number
Who the hell proofreads this shit?
GODDAMMIT ZDNET
>>8118535
>tfw can factor 232-digit prime number instantaneously in my head
haha computers
Take your pedophile cartoons back to >>>/a/.
Take your cute cartoons back to >>>/c/
Suppose it was possible to attach a rope from the Earth to a space station.
Would it be possible to climb said rope from the ground into outer space? I have a vague understanding of rockets needing to 'punch' through the atmosphere in order to reach outer space, but that involves flinging hundreds of tonnes of metal from Earth's gravity. If it's just a guy, climbing a rope, is it theoretically possible to slowly pass through the atmosphere?
Assume also that our climber is a beast and can also carry any oxygen/food/spacesuit/whatever is needed...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8118497
Yes, it's possible, assuming all the many assumptions needed.
No, there's nothing to "punch through". Real life isn't Spaceballs.
Also all of the other stuff you believe is wrong.
>>8118500
>Also all of the other stuff you believe is wrong.
Please explain.
>>8118501
space station would have its orbit fucked by you climbing up it and without help it would fall
it would need to burn fuel to keep itself aligned. Fuel that would be better spent just launching your dumb ass on a new rocket
Why does the wave function only collapse in one specific way? It could collapse in many different ways, but why does it only collapse the way it does, out of so many other possibilities?
>>8118488
>he believes in the Copenhagen interpretation
>>8118488
It's random, dummy.
>>8118488
look up transactional qm, penrose interpretation, GRW, debroglie-bohm, etc, read them, then come back.
no one knows, it's not relevant day-to-day qm anyway, it is retarded philosophy.
despite what many say, MWI is not that bulletproof (preferred basis problem, probability, the paradoxes caused by the equal reality of all parts of the W.F, etc). It is strong in some respects, but overall it seems some form of objective collapse interpretation will win eventually (not until we figure out gravity though)....
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
