Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 294. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
Can we back up a bit? I, sort of a newbie, but not really, want to ask about something that some newbie asked, but I can't remember for the life of me where it is.
It's true, if you look at the statement, "d / dx", it's saying that a small change in x changes the function following this by this much. Let the following function be and only be x^2 (and maybe others but having no greater than a power of 2).
By staying with the logic of this statement, what is stopping us from saying that a small change in x can be the increase of one integer...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>7956052
because an increase of "1" is not a small change. Unless you're talking about finite differences, which are not denoted by d/dx anyway.
d/dx does not say how much a function changes by increasing x by a small amount.
d/dx is just a notation.
Look up the definition of a derivative and you will see why it's 2x and not 2x+1
will help you prove it if you have trouble.
>>7956083
>d/dx does not say how much a function changes by increasing x by a small amount.
It doesn't?! Why can't we read it out exactly as the notation indicates? Why then not just use a sign created like the sum of all parts or something, rather than a notation that uses operations and variables?
derivative is the gradient, integral is the area under the graph
>the scientific community still hasn't figured out how to make penises larger
What are you slackers waiting for
>>7955930
You can get implants that extend it by like 2 inches but there's a high risk of rejection and complication.
Is penis size that important?
>>7955930
Stretch it obviously
How many stars are really in a galaxy? Obviously it's a lot, but is it really "billions and billions"? Has anyone tried to actually count them? Maybe it's just a couple million.
>>7955497
definitely more than a thousand
>>7955497
>obligatory
You need to make a few assumptions about the average star in a galaxy so the figure may be off a little but that's to be expected considering it is literally an entire galaxy
Attatched: slides by University of St.Andrews
hi /sci/,
Your cell phone and tablet are weapons
so is your computer
so is your TV
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.5008.pdf
https://www.google.com/patents/US6506148
Go back to /pol/
>>7955413
That's interesting
I figured this out last night
[math]\displaystyle \left (1-x \right )^{-1}= \prod_{n=0}^{ \infty} \left (1+x^{2^n} \right )[/math]
for |x| < 1 , amirite?
This must be a well-known expansion, ainnit?!
-1/12
>>7955380
Look up the binomial theorem
>>7955380
If you multiply it out, you'll get every possible combination of powers of 2 added together. This is exactly ever number, because you can represent every number in base 2. So it is not too surprising that this is equal to the geometric series.
Why does the moon look larger when its near the horizon?
When its near the horizon, its farther away by nearly one earth radius than when its high in the sky
Also taking into account atmospheric refraction, shouldnt it appear smaller?
Atmospheric scattering
>>7955335
Reference points. Same reason that this https://xopticalxillusions.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/which-one-do-you-think-is-bigger/ illusion works.
n=c/v
What class did you guys find more difficult and why? calc3, differential equations, or linear algebra?
>>7955106
calc 3 and differential equations are basic plug and chug
proof-based linear algebra, while not particularly difficult as far as theoretical math courses go, is probably the hardest of the three
linear algebra for engineers or whoever is just as mindless as the other two
>>7955106
Probability and Stats gave me some trouble. I wound up with an A, but I definitely had to put some serious work in for that.
I think it was because, at the time, it took me a while to properly parse all the problems, and i'd frequently miss some nuance in the english that would completely change the answer.
>>7955145
Oh sorry, I misread the original post. I didn't realize you meant out of those classes
> this is why I had to work so hard for probability
I can't actually comment on the three you posted though. I'm an engineering student, and we have a lame ass "combined" course for linear algebra and differential equations. I can't even comment on calc 3 really, since my school breaks the calc sequence into 4 classes.
i'm writing a short story about AI (for fun). without any pre programmed genetic parallels, how would an AI "want"? how would it establish desires and a will to live? surely it would deduce itself into a corner almost as soon as it would be turned on. how would you stop an AI from becoming suicidally nihilistic without creating something analogous to a biological process? i imagine the first self aware AI will be something like autistic people. AI are typically portrayed as advanced humans in fiction. how will it develop a method of communication? what kind of...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
you should ask tay
I think that an A.I would find the material world pointless,thus losing interest in it. Maybe it would end up becoming a robot version of Dr.Manhattan.That or it resolves in selfdestruct.
>>7954996
>how would an AI "want"?
Same way all current AIs do: Some inputs are associated with a reward or cost signal; it tries to maximize its future expected lifetime reward / minimize cost.
>How would it establish desires and a will to live
Beyond the specific things that directly produce reward/cost, it would also reason from those to pursue things that indirectly result in maximizing reward or minimizing loss. For instance, the AI might...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Where were you when all your fancy theories got BTFO
>>7954995
fapping to lolicon doujins
>>7954995
with your mama
>>7954995
fapping to lolicon doujins with your mama
Popsci does it again.
>>7954464
>shitty chemistry mug on top of physics 1 notes
Rich rofl
>>7954464
>carbon dihydride
[eqn]
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{REACTION} = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
W & T & F \\
F & W & T \\
T & F & W
\end{array} \right]
\end{aligned}
[/eqn] t. orgo student
Caffeine < theoBROmine
I wish to construct a hypothetical structure that reduces the height of waves (on the ocean) below x given that the waves are never higher than y
At first glance I thought this would be easy (the waves move a x meters per second with y mass giving z momentum) but I noticed that I have no clue how much water is moving or how fast
So how do I ocean wave math
>>7954387
>how much water is moving or how fast
All of it. The wave travels through the water, not as the water. Same with speed: The speed of the wave is the speed of the wave. The water is just a medium.
>>7954490
Yes and no
The waves are momentum of the water
Water is a medium but its carrying kinetic energy
My gut tells me that taking the speed up and down (height of wave/period of wave) by the volume of the wave (the volume above the surface that appears to be bouncing up and down) will get its momentum but I have no idea what's actually moving
>>7954510
the water molecules themselves are going in circles
http://i.imgur.com/7oWrxEJ.gif
How comes human brain isn't affected by EMP?
we're not battery operated nor have any electrical equipment that can overload
>>7954146
Isn't lightning technically an EMP? In which case EMPs kill you.
>>7954163
>neurons synapsing
So imagine you want to go back in time to see the Ancient Egypt because who wouldn't want to see that. So you get into a time machine you've just built and go back 4000 years. Instead of Egypt you end up floating somewhere in space because because the planet and even the galaxy is inconstant motion.
Will this scenario be possible? I feel like the "back in space" is always overlooked in sci-fi movies. They talk about moving back in the past but why never mention that moving through space is needed as well and that you could actually fuck it up and...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
You're constantly moving forward in time, yet you don't float off into space. Why would moving backwards in time be any different?
You're thinking of it as if you'd be in the same 3rd dimension while time traveling. Theory has it that time travel would be towards 5th dimension in which you can see time as it is and place yourself in any time.
>>7954078
Well, I kind of thought about it . I think we don't float off in space because we're in the now so it's impossible because of gravity but if you went back 4000 years the earth wouldn't be in this exact position so... you'd be floating.
Do you have kids /sci/? What kind of education did they have? If you don't, what kind of education would you want your kids to have? Do you think you could raise them into a prodigy?
> do you have kids /sci/?
jesus christ more than half of us are still in highschool and begging others to do homeworks, other half are still in uni or recent unemployed graduate NEET faggots. Getting married isn't even on the list.
>>7953924
This.
>>7953924
I have been here for too long
There are more LSD molecules in this square of acid I just took than there are stars in our galaxy.
Holy shit
And there are more positrons in space than there are protons in the universe
Enjoy your trip friend. Stay off the Internet though.
>>7953922
I didn't actually take any LSD though
It's just b8 :(
