How can a number go on indefinitely without repeating? Especially one that represents a physical property in the real world, like the length of something.
>>7930158
I assume you're talking about irrational numbers like the square root of two or pi.
>How can a number go on indefinitely without repeating?
How can you count indefinitely and not repeat? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 omg seems like it must stop right?
>Especially one that represents a physical property in the real world, like the length of something.
What does that have to do with anything?
>>7930187
>I assume you're talking about irrational numbers like the square root of two or pi.
Yes.
>What does that have to do with anything?
Because the object ends.
>>7930191
>Because the object ends.
The object has a finite size and pi (or whatever) is a finite number. What's the problem?
is it just me or are tensors/manifolds impossible?
shits high dimensional geometry on fucking steroids. And all the proofs just seem super hand wavey and basically magic
>pic related, me anytime I get to the stuff
>>7930082
>tensors/manifolds impossible?
no they are just ugly. deal with it or study an aesthetically pleasing field instead.
>>7930082
Nigga what.
What do you mean by impossible? A Manifold is just a Hausdorff Top. Space with "charts" that map portions of the manifold into R^n.
Hypothetical question.
First let's assume:
- our present understanding of our universe is accurate
- there are alternate universes
In this scenario, the alternate universe in question has formed in a wholly different fashion than our own. There are no forces or particles that resemble or function like ours.
My question is: if we were able to enter into that other universe, what would happen? I would assume we wouldn't be able to perceive anything since light, sound and heat wouldn't exist as we knew them.
But how would we react in this wholly alien environment? Would the laws governing our existence keep us intact? Or would we be so incompatible with that reality that we'd disintegrate as one big "error code?" Or is it something so far beyond our ability to conceptualize that we can't hazard a guess?
>>7929972
It seems unreasonable to assume that the forces or particles would be any different. They're called the building blocks of the universe for a reason.
>>7929974
Building blocks of our universe, sure. But what guarantee is there that they would form in exactly the same way in another universe?
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but under the theory of the Big Bang, at the start when all matter and energy were condensed into a single point, there were no individual forces or particles. Only after the rapid expansion did "things" - for lack of a better term - come into being.
In that case, why would Universe B have to result in the same "things" we got in our universe?
3sqrt(x)=2^x
I'm asked to find the intersection points between these two functions. is this even possible with algebra?
hint: answer is within (0, 100)
>>7929893
9=X^3
The answer is the cube root of nine,
and nine to the two thirds for y.
>>7929904
that's not even close to correct
how did you even come up with such a wrong answer?
quick question:
Why is my percent yield 210 in this experiment?
Copper chloride with 2 parts water + aluminum -->Copper + AlCl3.
Al is the limiting reactant. Mix that shit, then filter out the copper. Find mass of the filter and copper, then subtract the mass of the filter. There's WAY more "copper" than theoretically possible. What happened? Did some AlCl3 or CuCl2 get caught in the filter?
>inb4 underage
Youre mom
>>7929874
>being you
I bet I fucking bet you didn't balance the charges but only the masses.
Since you fools can't make a good thread, here's one.
Can a quantum computer contain a larger quantum virtual machine within it? Can you repeat this process forever making an infinitely powerful quantum computer? How many qubits would it take to do so?
>>7929604
Can a computer contain a larger virtual machine within it? Can you repeat this process forever making an infinitely powerful computer? How many bits would it take to do so?
>>7929606
Well, any information can be made to represent other information, so...
>>7929639
No need for bumping. Can't you see that they're all busy gorillaposting, bearposting, etc.
Sociology is the bestest thing ever. You all only hate it because it manipulates you and because it is difficult and rigourous yet does not require any hard math such as trigonometry. Every sociology study is also published readable and not under gibberish formality unlike your cute "hard sciences". You guys used to be cool 40 years ago, what happened?
>>7929483
who is this semen demon in the pic?
>>7929490
Maki
>>7929483
>"hard math"
>"trig"
What does /sci/ think about the recently approved mission to Europa? Do you think it might be a place colonies are set up in future?
>>7929364
It's a frozen hell hole with a surface temperature ranging from -160 to -220 Celsius.
>>7929364
We already have the Europa report
>>7929398
take a heater
What's your favorite rock or mineral
>rapakivi granite
>that feldspar zoning
>>7929346
I don't have one.
I'm not some loser nerd whose only friends are rocks lmao.
>>7929346
blue schist definitely
>>7929346
beryl
do you agree with this question; automation i going to ravage the job market over the next 2-3 decades, retail will be the first to go a the automated checkouts wipe out half maybe more of shot assistants, programs that can use programs will consign the office worker to the dustbin, and drones and driverless vehicles will destroy all transport related jobs, e.g. buses/trains, delivery drivers & couriers. Finally, cheap robots that can stack shelves overnight will mop up the last of retail, and you're looking at a shrinkage of what, 60%, 80? how will society deal with such upheaval?
>>7929336
>how will society deal with such upheaval?
This shit's already been discussed to death.
Capitalism will suffer. Universal income will be established.
>>7929347
Not with the current political climate.
>>7929350
The political climate will inevitably change when the automation revolution comes. Common sense.
Is there a single 'mental illness' for which a cure has been found? Why is psychiatry so lagging in this regard compared to the rest of medicine?
If I had to guess, I would say that it's the lack of clearly defined physiological pathologies with mental illness that is holding the field back. While there are very realizable effects when it comes to medications, this is partly because we know what we need to affect within the brain to get the results we want, but not always what is causing the pathology. For instance, in disorders like ADHD (>implying it's real) we have ideas that the source of inattentiveness stems from dopamine receptor inactivation in the Basal Ganglia. However, we would never be able to take a healthy human and lesion their basal ganglia based on a theory. It's impossible for us to know whether environmental factors cause ADHD symptoms or whether it's solely the biology, or perhaps a combination of both.
In addition, we cannot advance the field of psychiatry medically until we understand the brain completely. Neuroscience is still a relatively new field, and we still don't fully
comprehend everything we need to fully understand how physiological changes produce all behavioral
effects.
Another thing you will find frustrating is that mental disorders and illnesses can be caused from many different things and usually a disease is rather a subset of associates symptoms that really can manifest from many different causes, like Autism. There is strong evidence that Autism is a gender based hereditary disease caused by specific gene mutations, due to its particular prevalence in men. This would suggest that it is carried on the X chromosome, as men only have 1 copy. Now, researchers have found genes they believe to cause Autism, and there is a lot of evidence supporting their hypothesis. However, there are many people who are symptomatic that do not have the aforementioned genetic mutation.
All of this combined with relatively wide criterion for diagnosing mental illness makes mental illness easier to manage than cure. Just my thoughts on my way to work, you may disagree.
>>7929018
Another thought I have on this is that there is no real way to surgically cure mental illness, at least with the technology we have today. I suppose we could lesion out the parts of the brain that cause the illness, but that's if we could even localize the illness or prove that it's the sole factor in causing it. We know that people who suffer from clinical depression have different activations in their frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex, the center of higher reasoning In the brain. But it's not that simple, as it doesn't do the job alone. Furthermore, we can't just take the frontal lobe out of someone without horrible effects. This leaves medication and therapies such as deep brain stimulation as our only currently viable options.
>>7929018
Interesting view.
My own opinion is basically that while the mind is obviously correlated with the goings on in the brain, it is in fact an information system and thus can't be treated as a purely mechanical one as you can with the rest of the body. This for me seems like it could explain the discrepancy in results between psychiatry and the rest of medicine despite them using basically similar approaches.
The analogy I would pick would be that it's like trying to fix your windows install by dipping your hard drive in a chemical bath.
why all the controversy around this guy? i know he was a nazi but he put people on the moon
but there was no controversy
What controversy?
>he put people on the moon
From what I've seen in many threads on this board, the majority of you accepts that there is climate change and the best we can do is to decelerate this trend.
So my question is:
are you aware that the rain forest helps to control the anthropogenic greenhouse effect? If so, did you know that you can passively influence the tropical deforestation that happens in order to cultivate crops? Did you know, that the vast majority of soy cultivated there is eaten by your food, i.e. cattle and other livestock? Wouldn't it be rational to minimize your consume on meat to help maintaining as much rain forest as possible, regardless of what you thinking about stupid inferior animals? I mean, even if you think that one person can't change anything, wouldn't it be a good thing to eat like 5kg/year of meat instead of 80kg/year just for the sake of more trees and less CO2?
I'm interested in your opinion.
>inb4 libfag pls leave, I'm a maths undergraduate
>>7928561
Check out Brazil's GMO eucalyptus trees. They grow super fast and are planted specifically for logging. It allows them to use far less land for logging.
Also, I raise my own chickens. That's the only meat I actually eat.
>>7928561
Cant disagree. I have recently cut back meat due to dietary considerations. The fact is, meat is cheap. It is easy. It is quick to cook. The texture is unique. The flavour is unique. It is ubiquitous (kfc, M, b.king etc). Sheeple are very very very lazy.
Vegetables take a long time to prepare, they do not store easily requiring frequent shopping trips, the flavour range is small.
Frankly. Until there is a MAJOR oil crunch, restricting imports. We are stuck with meat.
(Source: i am old enough to remember when food was seasonal because of availability. Vegetables in summer, meat in winter. )
Hello, I was trying to derive the equation of velocity for a rocket subject to gravity and quadratic air resistance, but I was stuck and I realized it might be really hard to solve the differential equation so I just did linear velocity, which is bit unrealistic for a rocket. I used a linear differential equation to solve it and was wondering if anyone could check to see if my calculations are correct because I can't find anything on google.
Also to define the variables, -k=dm/dt, m=m0-kt, b=a constant for the drag force, f(v)=-bv, Vex is exhaust velocity. I'd like to make sure my calculations are correct for linear resistance, but does anyone know how to solve for quadratic drag? Thanks.
>>7928220
>equation of velocity for a rocket subject to gravity and quadratic air resistance
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~thorn/homepage/cmuglectures.pdf
p16
>>7928234
>http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~thorn/homepage/cmuglectures.pdf
A rocket is different than a projectile because the mass in a rocket decreases as the fuel burns.
I am asking,
1. Are my current calculations for a rocket subject to linear drag and gravity correct?
2. How do you solve the differential equation of motion, mdv/dt=-dm/dtVex -cv^2 -mg?
Does this have to be done by hand? Rocket flight is meant to be solved numerically, I've never tried to predict a rocket's flight any other way because it's usually just not solvable without making a lot of assumptions (linear velocity included) that make it hopelessly inaccurate
Anyways I'm not really sure how to follow your work and I don't really want to try
What can we realistically expect in the next 40 years?
Can we expect Mechs? AI? Augmentation? Cyberpunk?
I know technology moves a lot slower than fiction likes to predict, but I sure am tired as fuck of the current age we are living in.
>>7928113
This truth may be hard to swallow OP:
There is absolutel no way of knowing.
If you're getting bored of today's reality, you seriously need to check your attention span or get a hobby.
>>7928113
>Mechs?
Unless they have a really niche special use, probably not. At least not the larger mechs anyway.
>AI?
'AI' in the sense of well-crafted learning networks that can work on a problem and possibly be used to replace low-skill jobs. If you mean artificial general intelligence, then no.
>Augmentation?
Ethics will probably prohibit it in the western world, but not China. The western world will accept it eventually depending on how far behind we will be left by China. A timeframe cannot be established on this one, it's too unpredictable.
>Cyberpunk?
If you mean megacorporations taking over the world, then yes, corporations are already growing out of control. Google, Microsoft, Apple, Monsanto with gene patents have more power than whole governments. This will only get worse in the future. I can't say if the breaking point will be 40 years from now, but it will happen unless a radical change takes place.
There you go, that's my take on the current situation.
>>7928119
It's just shit, man. The 80s/90s were absolutely powerful. We got the internet and cell phones, that was huge. But in the last 20 years all they have done is change the shape of cellphone sand make them more powerful.
Pretty shit. We don't even have full-on electric cars yet, that's just beginning. People are seriously hampering progress intentionally for their own greedy ends.
We need flying cars that run on solar fuel. That would really facilitate travel.
