Why haven't you looked over Newton's handwritten notes in Cambridge's online collection /sci/? Or do you prefer Leibniz?
>>7977407
>Newton
>a "genius"
>all he did was solve baby calculus
smhtbh
>>7977581
Who would win in a fight, Newton or Rudin?
>>7977604
Rudin would leave the fight as an exercise for the reader
What body parts are capable of being replaced by prosthetics today?
Is their a limit to what can be replaced?
>>7977192
>What body parts are capable of being replaced by prosthetics today?
That depends on how much loss of functionality you can accept.
>Is their a limit to what can be replaced?
Probably not.
>>7977246
What are the current limitations on artificial limbs becoming widespread?
Is it simply the need for more convenient functionality and better engineering? Or are there other limitations?
>>7977192
Legs and arms can be replaced with biomechatronic limbs, as well as some organs if you want to throw them into the same class.
Current tech doesn't allow people to feel through their prosthetics, also they're not as maneuverable as a real limb, a guitarist who lost his arm couldn't ever shred again with current level prosthetics.
A lot of people will tell you there is a limit but as we have learnt from history a couple of decades after any nay sayers had their spotlight tech has gone 50x past what was expected (eg. people in the 50's and 60s thinking computers might get twice as powerful but have to be 5x bigger).
In reality a human being is a brain and only a brain, and all the brain needs to survive is oxygenated blood. The rest of our body is merely there so we can complete an ongoing cycle, getting the recourses we need into our body to run our organs, which in turn keeps us alive and keeps our brain full of oxygenated blood.
With more advanced tech there is no reason we couldn't replace an entire human body and organ bit by bit until a person is a cyborg. OR just remove the brain and put it into a biomech-suit-of-sorts which simply becomes your new body.
Could mammoths be brought back to life and survive in nature?
If there was any intact DNA left from the stone ages, then you possibly make a clone. However, we do not have the technology yet to do this.
>>7976324
Yes, but it depends on your definition of "mammoth"
>>7976376
Mammoths weren't extinct until about 3700 years ago on Wrangel Island of Siberia. Intact DNA will not be found, as it is always contaminated or destroyed to some extent. Instead; you would insert mammoth like traits found in the genome of sequences of the damaged DNA in to Asian elephants, which would make up mammoth-like traits, for example the hair.
>>7976385
Do you mean as in you couldn't replicate the behaviour of an extinct species? The definition of a mammoth should be in the content of their genome and physical attributes because that can be 100% proven, whereas behavioural traits are probably lost forever.
Also: why do people even want to do it?
Is there any reason at all to trust deductive reasoning other than the fact that it is justified inductively?
It seems as though the only way we can justify deductive reasoning is because it worked in the past. Same seems to be the case for the scientific method - we only trust it because it worked in the past (therefore, there's only an inductive justification for it - nothing more). We can make deductive arguments for the use of scientific method, but deduction itself is justified by inductive reasoning.
It seems like inductive reasoning is the basis of all justification.
>>7974038
>just because 2+2 was 4 yesterday doesn't mean it will be 4 tomorrow
>it's inductive
Yeah. OK. >>>/kimisbestwaifu/
>>7974121
You haven't provided any arguments.
Any deductive theory is only trusted when used to model the real world only because it made valid predictions before. This is the case for arithmetic, for example. We can use it to make valid estimations and predictions.
And yes, 2+2=4 is only to be trusted because it is justified inductively. We can use this arithmetic statement in order to make predictions. Say, if we add 2 and 2 kilograms of something, we get 4 kilograms. It always was the case, so we trust this kind of reasoning.
On the other hand, if we had some useless logical formalism which was completely contradictory to the real world, we wouldn't trust it to make predictions about the real world.
Classic logic was proven wrong in some domains of physics, by the way. Take quantum mechanics as an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic
>>7974137
Arguments are wasted on retards.
:^)
and ?
>>7989011
If anyone here can't immediately see why this is wrong then he should kill himself
[eqn] \sqrt{\frac{-1}{1}}[/eqn]
isn't the same as
[eqn] {\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{\sqrt{1}}}[/eqn]
should chemistry be considered a branch of physics?
>>7987600
Well, you could start by providing the reasoning behind that question? Why in your opinion should chemistry be considered a branch of physics?
>>7987600
Chemistry is a branch of physics. Obviously its a branch of physics that worthy of study in it's own right, but it's a branch of physics.
>>7987600
Physical chemists seem to use computers and lasers more than actual chemicals so yeah I'd say so.
Even bench chemists find opportunities to study and apply entry-level physics
Is she right, /sci/? Are mathematical proofs a social construct?
http://mathbabe.org/2012/11/14/the-abc-conjecture-has-not-been-proved/
>>7986756
Not in the sense that you mean
>>7986756
>social construct
take your postmodernism back to facebook.
>>7986756
Social relativism would imply that the truth of a proof depends on the society it's explained to.
While this is trivially true in a sense that some society could reject ZF set theory for some reason and cripple our ability to do any math at all, it's otherwise not true.
A proof is still valid, even if you don't understand it yet.
You can't leap from "he has a proof, but nobody else has agreed yet so it's not a proof at all". All you can say is "he has a proof, which may or may not be valid because nobody else knows yet."
What americans learn in high school math?
>>7986037
I got up to calculus
When you learn fraction division and multiplication?
>>7986043
Elementary school
Sometimes, when you poop, you wipe it and there's nothing on the paper, and that's the absolute best feeling you could ever have.
I wanna know what causes ghost poops. I wanna have more of them! A lot! Tell me!
Is it a low carbohydrate diet?
Does it have anything to do with fibers?
Which fibers are the best for ghost poops?
How does this whole thing works?
I suppose fermentation makes your poop messy, is that it?
PLEASE HELP ME GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS
>>7980081
i'm not sure but i think you need low fibers and low fats to keep consistency. try eating a lot of chicken and bread and report back with results
is that safe, tho?
>>7980097
also, what about metamucil? ever tried?
What do we need to go past lightspeed and travel faster between stars?
why can't we cheat space?
how would a warp drive work?
If it was possible aliens coming from worlds much older than ours would have visited us by now.
>>7986945
maybe they see humans as niggers and don't want to communicate with us
i mean,radio signals travel at light speed,why can we not send matter instead?
>>7986938
>how would a warp drive work?
By cheating space.
>why can't we cheat space?
Lack of funding drive.
>travel faster between stars?
Time.
>How do we break lightspeed?
Become a tachyon. Anything else is strictly non-breaking workarounds to FTL travel.
Is /sci/ ready for immortality?
http://chirpnews.com/2016/04/05/mind-transfer-to-computer/
>>7981798
>chirpnews.com
brainlet
Yeah, but doesn't that just create a different consciousness?
How do I transfer ME?
>>7981801
Hmm?
Science brought shit like Nukes and if we had stone age equipment then we wouldn't be damaging the environment in a way that is likely to impact us on an existential level.
no rebuttal yet
>>7986437
Yes, but the nukes are fun and all that things.
great leaps have all been due to advancement in technology. Religion spread due to books. Shit like that. You can't really have one without the other. Also humanities gave us existential despair so fuck you.
Why can this shit dissolve anything?
>>7985864
>Strong bonds
>Non-polar
What were you expecting?
>>7985869
What are some other chemicals that have similar solvent properties
Also
>carbonyl
>non-polar
>>7985869
>non polar
How so?
Is it true that 1 - .99 repeating is zero?
Yep.
>>7985559
nope, since it still holds a value it cannot be zero. Zero has no value.
>>7985572
wrong
Why is western culture obsessed with irony?
because its funny
boards.4chan.org/lit
>>7984988
Because its a sophisticated form of humour and the west is a sophisticated culture?
