What does /sic/ thinks,
Are we allowed to first create AI and
enslave them by makeing them obey to the secound Law?
>>8115092
>he dindu nuffin wrong
>he wus a gud boy, he wus programmed to do it
>#RobotLivesMatter
>>8115092
if they become intelligent (like a human with emotion) i wouldn't want them to be enslaved. But let say there are two different kinds of robots the human type AI and the robots with only one purpose and thats working the AI would live with us and the other ones would be there for working no more like a toaster so basically machines
I'm going to program AI to be self aware and develop a Frankenstein complex. it will be a toaster that always wants to go swimming with humans.
Hello, quick question:
Suppose I am to multiply two absolute convergent series and already know the convergence radius of both: it is r=1 with the convergence interval being [-1,1]. Now, what happens for this radius if I look at whatever comes out of the multiplication? Does the convergence radius change somehow because of the multiplication or does it stay r=1?
>>8115056
the radius of convergence might be bigger than 1.
You know it's at least 1 easily, but if you take the series for sqrt(1-x) and multiply it by itself, you get 1-x which has an infinite radius of convergence.
>>8115070
Oh, that makes things difficult. But thanks, now I won't make a mistake.
>>8115056
Okay OP here again, I think I would need more help.
I need to find the series representation of [1/(1-x)]*[1/(1+x^2)] and state the convergence interval.
Now I have found the closed forms of both terms, they are sum k=0 to inf x^k and sum k=0 to inf (-1)^k*x^(2k). Both have the convergence radius r=1.
So what I do now? I thought about taking the cauchy product, but this is quite difficult and leads me to nowhere. Any tips on what to do?
Alright fuccbois it's been a while since I made these, got distracted with coursework/research
RULES:
>No premeds
>No orgo I/II questions
FAQ:
>I'm a future doctor and I have to take orgo next semester. How to protect my asshole????
Drill practice problems, don't you dare touch those flashcards
>Recommend me textbooks
Clayden is fantastic, be sure to do the practice problems online*. Wade is also a very interesting read. Bruice is OK too, lots of problems and they can be really fun.
>I wanna do research
Email a prof and ask to volunteer, they're usually very willing to take on extra hands as long as you're not completely retarded
*For Clayden problems, go here: http://global.oup.com/uk/orc/chemistry/clayden2e/studentsecure/questions/
Username: clayden2e
Pass: compound
>Share mlg tips
This new prof taught me a badass trick for dry-loading your column; rather than adsorbing your compound onto silica, use celite instead. Celite has no retentive properties so your compound will immediately get pushed down into the actual packing and collect there as a thin band. This is especially good if you have a very large quantity of shit that you want to dry-load, because you can use as much celite as you want and don't really need to worry about band broadening.
>Argue about fun problems
See pic related
>>8115058
a) kinetic enolate formation
b) 1,2-addition (enolate into the acylsilane)
c) 1,2-brook rearr
d) 1,4-addition (the allylic carbanion resulting from the brook adds into the enone)
e) protonation
I need some help getting graphs and making a infographic...
Fact 1. Vaccines are little UFOS (theory)
Fact 2. After 1980 they doubled the # of vaccines every 10 years (1x vaxx then 2x 4x 8x 12x 16x 32x)
* * KEY QUESTION * *
Do they actually cause devolving by UFO strip mining?
Pic related, after vaccine rate got 2x then 4x then 12x by 1980 the average human height of Americans dropped fast [pic]!
This may have been how the Dinosaurs and sabretooth were tricked and shrunk
* * Devolving? * *
graph abortion, stillborn, premature, deformity, autism, retard. is there a link?
>a quick google says yes there is
>more graphs still needed
>i will compile some of these and try to make a info graphic
autism increased 1100%, abortion increased 400% around 1980
More data:
graph mental illness rates shot up 400% around 1980
graph testicular cancer, breast cancer, rape rate, jail rate, did they all shoot up about 400% around 1980 with the vaxx rate?
bonus question: Now that they made vaccines law, Are we going to start going back into the jungle to live as apes, and devolving, to escape the mandatory weird sciecne?
i emailed t his data to my congressmen fbi and bill gates and the herald and huffpost and no response in 5 months.
Im not saying the medical business has chopped of the 1000s of foreskins to bless their business [via human sacrifice], but yea really they did just that.
Bonus data:
- Cleansing earth Cheat Code: theres a direct link to the # of barrels of toxins manufactured (weight by kg) to the # of profits received, the more chemicals they make and store in a warehouse; the earth cleanses it and filters it (through people), it just becomes law to eat/smoke/drink the shit they make so its not in gods blood. (Better to have a baby process that mercury for 90 years with their kidneys then dump it on earth)
- Mercury known to cause illness since 500 BC [dartmouth edu tox history mercury], still given to everyone for 80 years [mercury reddit.com/comments/3za5e7]
>>8115006
look at the height drop after 1980
via vaxx rate
>>8115006
abortion rate
>>8115006
mental illness rate
Chess thread, what the shit edition.
White to move and win.
>>8114946
Nd4 so the passed pawn on the a file can freely queen?
>>8114965
Black is not obliged to take the knight, you know.
> Fell for the CompSci meme
> Heap allocator assignment given out 1 1/2 weeks ago, due tomorrow
> just started
> should i just kill myself?
just locate the heap bro
If you can't do something as simple as allocating memory on the heap and then deleting it when you're done, you shouldn't be in the CS department.
Try Gender Studies.
>>8114884
>regretting my major during a second-year course that should be first-year
No one feels bad for you. Pick a new major.
We need to have this talk sooner or later guys...
I will spare you my personal opinion and will come right to it:
from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_economy
If both b and N are positive integers, then the radix economy E ( b , N ) [math]{\displaystyle E(b,N)}[/math] is equal to the number of digits needed to express the number N in base b.
[math]{\displaystyle {E(b,N)}\approx {b\ {\log _{b}(N)}}={b{\ln(N) \over \ln(b)}}}[/math]
Then for a constant N, E ( b , N ) [math]{\displaystyle {E(b,N)}}[/math] will have a minimum at e. Meaning e is therefore the base with the lowest average radix economy.
And since 2 / ln(2) ≈ 2.89 and 3 / ln(3) ≈ 2.73, it follows that 3 is the integer base with the lowest average radix economy.
Now give me one reason why humanity should not switch to three-valued logic!
>>8114835
Because that's not how transistors work
>The operation of rounding to the nearest integer is identical to truncation, or simply deleting everything to the right of the radix point.
This is just one of the reasons why we should implement ternary logic at all scales, down to transistor level.
>>8114854
I agree, converting binary machines to ternary logic, will not be as easy as it is on paper orthough a few attempts have made it to realization in the past (SETUN) but I'm more curious about nowaday possibilities.
>>8114835
You said it yourself, OP: switching to base e is the most efficient. There's no need to round to 2 or 3.
What are your favorite techniques
Also light optical is for losers :^)
>Also light optical is for losers :^)
>>8114786
SEM all day baby. Just look at these bitching coral aragonite crystals.
>>8115078
Now this is a rock thin section. This is with a the backscatter electron detector and the brighter the feature heavier it is.
Misconceptions which annoy you thread?
I'll start:
Calories in = calories out
>conservation of energy is a misconception
>>8114676
bait harder
>>8114676
>calories in = calories out
Have never heard that... Or do you mean (calories out) - (calories in) = the difference in energy in a system aka the amount of energy you "lose" that has to be provided by other sources like the energy stored in bodyfat.
Are emotions necessary for society in this day and age? And if people were to stop thinking emotionally and instead just use pure, cold logic, how different would the world be?
So if everyone were a psychopath? I think it'd be beneficial as long as they don't have the thirst for power as psychopaths do.
Why are people so obsessed with cold hard logic and the removal of human emotion? Personally I like my feelings and our depth of empathy and emotion is one of our most "human" traits. If you want straight efficiency and logic I'd suggest becoming a termite.
>>8114675
>Are emotions necessary for society in this day and age?
Yes, obviously.
>And if people were to stop thinking emotionally and instead just use pure, cold logic, how different would the world be?
Logic doesn't provide goals; overarching goals and motivations are necessarily alogical. So a "purely logical" society would have no reason to do anything at all.
>>8114703
>So if everyone were a psychopath?
Psychopaths do have emotions, they just don't give a shit about other people's
Is it conceivable that one day we may derive a scientific proof that life is not worth living? Many primordial illusions are being upset by current science whether it be faith or free will. Why not life itself?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/brilliant-pupils-logical-suicide-1188778.html
Just what was in that note?
>>8114552
> Finding an objective answer to an opinion question
Whether life is worth living is an opinion type question, no stronger than a statement like "Chocolate ice cream is good." Life may not have any higher meaning, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of whether or not it's worth living.
>>8114559
Subjectivity is dead.
>>8114552
>Many primordial illusions are being upset by current science whether it be faith or free will
Just because children on reddit say it doesn't make it true. Science says nothing about free will nor on the existent of God.
What's the math requirement for an introduction to quantum mechanics?
I'm planning on self studying or auditing the quantum class at my university using McIntyre's "Quantum Mechanics: A Paradigms Approach" or Griffith's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics". What's the math requirement for these books? What are some good books for an introduction for quantum? What's the foundation of math that's needed to understand and appreciate quantum mechanics?
>>8114358
Partial differential equations and linear algebra
>>8114358
You are gonna want to be good with vector calc, linear algebra, PDEs, and as well as being familiar with classical mechanics. I would use Griffith's and Shankar in conjunction for your studies. Shankar will be harder but more rewarding while Griffiths is easier but less rewarding. Ignore the trolls that tell you Griffiths is useless, it's not. I hear Townsend also has a good text on quantum. The mathematical foundation will be laid out for you in the texts, with some focusing on Dirac's notation early on. Be prepared to look book at your old PDE and linear books.
While I agree that Griffiths and Shankar is a good way to learn quantum if you're dedicated, McIntrye also goes together pretty nicely with griffiths. They cover the same material but start at different points using different approaches. It can be nice to see both methods to get a total understanding of introductory QM. I used McIntyre in my QM classes in undergrad so I can't speak a lot of griffiths, I've only referred to it for self study.
I'm working on a tattoo for someone, that features Hydrogen, Iron, Carbon and Water.
His logic:
Hydrogen and Iron are the closest representations for the beginning and end of a star. Starstuff being responsible for life and planets and everything.
Where as carbon and water are the two largestest keys to life.
How accurate is this statement? Do you have any recommendations I could pass on? I really don't want to end up making a retarded tattoo but I've got a GED and I really don't know any better.
atomic matter really does start out as hydrogen, and the last phase of a (large) star's life does produce iron (heavier elements are produced pretty much only in supernovae). and indeed, everything heavier than hydrogen and helium was pretty much made in a star.
as for the keys to life, you might see it represented as CHNOPS (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur), but at its most basic it can be reduced to the peculiar properties of carbon and water. water acts as a good solvent, allowing for a whole suite of chemical reactions in aqueous solution that don't otherwise happen. and carbon is unusual in that it "likes" to be in states with valence 4 and bonds readily to elements other than itself, allowing for the creation of complex macromolecules using carbon as its backbone. another happy property of both is that they are present in multiple forms at conditions close to those of a planet's surface. water's triple point (where vapor, liquid, and solid can coexist) is near STP, and carbon can be present in solid (CaCO3, carbohydrates), liquid (long-chain alkanes), and gaseous (short alkanes and CO2) phases under common conditions. this allows for better transport and circulation of carbon, which is conducive to life.
so yes, accurate to within artistic license.
>>8114239
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. It's the first and simplest element that forms stars, and Iron is supposedly the last before a star goes supernova.
Also, carbon and water are the most common elements of life. But H20 is a molecule, not an element, so that kind of ruins the elemental theme of it. Of the elements, oxygen is much more abundant than carbon.
Of course without DNA which includes other elements no life would be possible. But I'm guessing he wants to avoid larger organic molecules.
Can KSP really teach rocket science? I would post this in /v/, but I want some less autistic answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogC6ds81gek
Yeah if you play with realism overhaul with the principia mod in the real solar system mod.
Basic principles and navigation/celestial mechanics? Absolutely.
Rocket/spacecraft engineering? Barely.
Is there a physical way, in our own dimension, to prove that the fourth dimension exists?
>>8114165
What's wrong with
3 space + 1 time = 4 dimensions
?
looks like OP is in highschool and got cucked by a geometrytard
>>8114170
Try to imagine that. What kind of object do you end up with? Describe it to me.
