Find the exact value of x^x = 2
Wizard mode: No Wolfram Alpha
>product log
define exact value
A value in terms of functions of the given numbers i.e. not a decimal approximation
/sci/ ask a polymath anything.
what are your areas of proficiency?
>>8170161
whats a polymath?
>>8170164
Good question. My areas of proficiency include anthropology, history, philosophy, mathematics, psychology, neuroscience, computer science, quantum physics, bioengineering, computer engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and much more.
> Vast and complex Universe
> Material in nature
> This material apparently self generated
> The Universe was created in and of itself
Explain.
matter wasn't created. it was always there
>>8170060
isnt that ascribing the powers of a god to the universe?
no matter which way you look at it, it is a miracle.
>>8170066
how did you came to that conclusion ?
Sup /sci/, I'm not buying the theory of evolution. Can you convince me?
>>8164094
evolution is a lie but shut up and let us "research" it, we need money for food
>>8164094
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
>people still can't accept evolution
Fossil record you fucking nigger
Why should I learn chemistry if I'm studying electronic engineering?
I hate chemistry.
Grow up
lol stop whining
>>8169921
>electronic engineering
You mean electrical engineering?
He's trolling, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REeaT2mWj6Y
>>8165779
He's always trolling.
Master ruseman.
http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~weigand/Skript-strings11-12/Strings.pdf
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~shlomo/docs/Advanced_Calculus.pdf
>pedophile cartoons
>back to /a/
[math]\displaystyle{\frac{e^{-\frac{(x-\mu )^2}{2 \sigma ^2}}}{\sqrt{2 \pi } \sigma }}[/math]
whats /sci/'s opinion on this guy?
>>8163569
these threads work better when you start with giving your own opinion
>>8163573
well I wanted to ease into it since anytime you make threads like this on /sci/ its usually flamed for being /x/ bullshit but I am legitimately curious what some of you thought. If you look into his stuff and listen to what he has to say obviously its very speculative but I don't really see how its that far fetched and why someone would go to such measures just to tell fallacies about working on extraterrestrial technology
>>8163569
After all of his interviews that I have listened to, I could never help thinking '"this guy does not sound like an engineer, a physicist or any other kind of scientifically trained professional."
Just his language, grammar and vocabulary, he doesn't sound like a highly technical advanced scientist at all. always thought he just sounded like some average blue collar schmuck reciting some ideas he gathered together from reading alot of science fiction and binge watching the Discovery Science channel.
The theory of life starting on earth by lightening striking a tidepool or puddle is the most retarded thing that has ever been accepted as truth in all of recorded history.
Flat out.
Retarded.
I have more respect for flat earthers than puddle people.
>>8173679
>Retarded.
not that it matters to anyone... but why?
Do you have a better theory? Can you give reasons for why the theory should not be true? (I havent even heard of it, btw)
>>8173682
Because it has never been proven but is still lofted up like a goddamn golden bull for all to follow.
Abiogenesis is hailed as the one thing to follow when it comes to the origin of life as if the world of science is a goddamn religion. Usually when you say "uh, lightening hitting a puddle didn't start life on this planet. I don't know what did but it sure as hell wasn't that" /sci/fags tend to get a little pissy and start calling you a christfag and whatnot.
>>8173679
Iguanodon is my favourite hervivore dinosaur.
Are there any actual creationists or ID proponents here?
>>8172801
At least come up with your own fucking jokes
>>8172795
>Are there any actual creationists or ID proponents here?
That regularly post here? I doubt it. Creationism is wholly incompatible with having any kind of desire to actually understand how nature works.
A 'creationist' will pop up in this thread, but they're probably just trying to bait people.
The attitude that 'LaTeX is easy' is perpetrated loudly by people that haven't had to use LaTeX very much. It is only tentatively saved by the comprehensive (sometimes, if you're lucky, even readable) documentation of all its quirks. Left to over 30 years of growth outside of its intended use case, LaTeX proper does nothing you would need it to, and the packages that you use with it are horribly fragmented. Maybe Latex is good at the things it sets out to implement, but those things aren't what I or anyone else uses it for (creating publication-quality documents). So in considering latex we are forced to also consider the environment of libraries in which it exists.
LaTeX brings all the problems you had in the Windows 2000 era of programming into document creation.
> misleading compiler messages
> dependency hell
> choosing a compiler
> bad environment
> inconsistent syntax
> GOTOs
> knowing whether or not you have run the compiler enough times to produce a document (!!!)
> semantic code is impossible
Every time I want to do anything other than add words to my document, I have to think about whether I want to use Latex's meager facilities, facilities that I had to code, or facilities that someone else invented, then worry about all the quirks in them. If I want to add a table to my document, I need to decide whether it should be:
> tabular
> tabular*
> tabularx
> longtable
> align
> array
> eqnarray
> matrix
Someone told me that one of these is very bad and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, although he didn't tell me why, and I don't remember which one.
It baffles me that thinking about these things is prerequisite to writing a document.
I am not going to stop using Latex, but no one will ever get me to say that it's easy.
>>8171013
> choosing a compiler
does anyone use anything beside MikTeX?
> bad environment
you shut your whore mouth
> inconsistent syntax
really? I haven't noticed it in my years of using it
> GOTOs
ur doing it wrong
I only use tabular (inside a table environment making it a float)
aligh and eqnarray are for equations...and they are ever so slightly different
I used some longtable package, but ikr when.
The rest sound like junk unless you convince me otherwise
Floats are gross, but by their nature they kinda have to be.
>>8171013
Honestly, if you really run into all these problems frequently, you seem to have some misconceptions on how to use latex.
>>8171035
> does anyone use anything beside MikTeX?
Yes, there is also TeXlive and others, but that's not what I'm complaining about.
Should I use pdflatex, pdftex, xelatex, xetex, or lualatex then dvi2pdf or ....???
My code previously compiled using pdflatex, but now I need some of the features that only the xetex family has. but it wont compile under xe* compilers. Why not? I don't know.
> bad environment
Recently in my lab we had a problem where one guys pdflatex would compile the paper to 11 pages, and the other guy's would compile it to 10 pages. There was a 10 page submission limit. We had to go use Dan's computer every time we wanted to compile the document. It was an environment issue. We never figured this one out.
> inconsistent syntax
Here's a fun challenge for you, try referencing the same footnote multiple times throughout a document. References are universally done using \label and \ref, except with footnotes, where some arcane thing with how the counter is implemented in LaTeX. Known issue, marked as won't fix by developers. To perform this you have to create your own global counter variable, and recode all the footnote management yourself.
> GOTOs
There is a difference between function calls and expanding syntax. can you tell which is which, and when it matters?
>gross, but by their nature they kinda have to be
nothing has to be this gross
It's all here in this NASA paper:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800010907.pdf
To summarize it's a paper about field propulsion, some kind of warp-drive using lasers and magnets, nothing tinfoil here, we all know that it's allowed by Einstein's equations and that NASA Eagleworks has been openly working on these things for years.
Here's where it gets weird: Right off the bat they start mentioning UFOs claiming to "not be involved in UFO research". Why mention UFOs? it's just a physics paper.
Then it gets weirder: Despite this disclaimer, the entire paper is essentially them admitting that UFOs could be real aliens and we should study the phenomena with "photographic spectra", "magnetic measurements" and "geiger counters" in order to glean information about their propulsion systems. In short, stories of scientists prodding crashed spacecraft in Area 51 is bunk, it's really about monitoring emissions from UFOs in the sky.
Finally there's the picture that I have included in the bottom half of pic related. NASA's ideas for a field propulsion craft; it looks exactly like the famous UFO that was seen in 1947.
So the take-home message from this is not that aliens are real, this isn't proof of that but that NASA does take the idea of space aliens seriously. Not only that but they are actively involved in studying UFOs and have even gained something from it.
>>8169458
>ASTRACT
more like ass tract
this "paper" is full of nonsense, what the fuck is this?
>>8169458
Flying wing research has been done as early as 1935 and this is with proof and documented by the Germans,stuff could have been work in progress much earlier.
Someone taking on theoretical research on different types of propulsion is nothing new.
If you thing there are really UFOs than you should get your head examined.
Seriously.
>>8169458
>we all know that it's allowed by Einstein's equations
It isn't, actually; reading through that paper, it's relying on speculative physics that have not been borne out in the last 38 years of physics research. Nobody has developed a working theory unifying electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields that has achieved acceptance. (Kaluza-Klein theory was promising for a while, but no evidence has been found for it and, like other GUT attempts, tends to predict that protons should decay. We looked and, as far as we can tell, they don't.)
Also, all known warp-drive and wormhole solutions to Einstein's equations have the slight problem that they either require truly astronomical (as in, large-planet-sized) amounts of exotic mass-energy, or require squeezing that exotic mass-energy into Planck-scale structures and Planck-scale densities, or both. Also, it's unknown whether exotic mass-energy could ever stably exist or be manipulated in such quantities and configurations. They work mathematically, but nobody knows how to get from a universe which has not been warped in such a fashion to one which has, or whether such a configuration actually represents anything physically possible and not a flaw in our theories. (General relativity is almost certainly not valid at the Planck scale, as that's around where quantum gravitational effects are believed to become too significant to ignore.)
>Right off the bat they start mentioning UFOs claiming to "not be involved in UFO research". Why mention UFOs? it's just a physics paper.
Because the paper clearly states that it's inspired by UFO research, and NASA is trying to cover their asses and say "somebody else wrote this for us" so they don't look like they're too closely involved with the fringe?
Anyway, yes, of course NASA's interested. That's the whole point of Eagleworks, and its predecessors including the program this paper's for - [cont]
Why is it not allowed to be a fucking speculative on this board?
>post or theorize about ANYTHING which isn't well documented
>your entire thread is spammed with people who fell for the college spook and only know how to parrot what their textbooks say
The fuck?
prolly cuz ur not basing ur speculations on anything solid or testable. topics like those, everyone feels like they can throw opinions out there
>>8169770
>Why is it not allowed to be a fucking speculative on this board?
Because 100% of the time it "speculate" and "theorise" are just euphemisms for "here's some unsubstantiated crap I thought of while sitting on the shitter". No one does anything other than present some (often) poorly thought out idea, never do people attempt to write down some mathematics and show some implications of their idea.
You know who does a good job theorizing and speculating? People with some knowledge of the subject and it's history.
Alright anons, so right now there aren't a lot of good boards on /sci/. There's a good couple, but other than that this whole place is just nope. I've come to fix that.
As of late, something has been on my mind, but I haven't been able to put it into words. Perhaps until now. I'm just going to cut to the chase.
The reverse butterfly affect.
Let's take a look at the butterfly effect. We observe a butterfly in Beijing. Every time it's wings flap, what the weather will be in New York changes. And, this may be true. It's the strangest phenomena, known as the butterfly affect in chaos theory. The absolute smallest differences can throw an entire operation off or change the affect of an event, making the outcome different from another identical event. Chaos theory is a field of physics which focuses on nonlinear equations and probability, and it's this field that applies to things like guessing the weather. Most physical phenomena are measurable and predictable, however not all phenomena can be linearly guessed. Chaos theory not only focused on observing unstable phenomena, but also in predicting the future. Where would a double suspended pendulum be if we dropped it from a certain angle? We can't really know as inputs need to be filled out.
Now, the normal butterfly affect and chaos theory focus on predicting the future.
What I'm thinking of focuses on reading the past.
Let's observe the Big Bang theory. We all know what it is, so I won't go in depth explaining it. However, when we look at how one would go about developing it, you basically just look at the patterns of stellar and galactic movement and reverse it. When we do this, all we can understand is that everything was once wrapped up really tight in a ball.
[Pretyped, way over character limit, will continue.]
>>8173439 cont.
However, the difference between studying the Big Bang hypothesis and my idea for the reverse butterfly affect focuses on nonlinear equations. The reason we can't really formulate the nonlinear equations in chaos theory mathematics is because there are open inputs that still need to be filled. However that's just about predicting the future. There's no need to (mathematically) predict the past, as it's already happened. This would mean that the inputs for said nonlinear equations would already be filled! If the inputs, which would otherwise be unguessable, be filled, we'd be able to reverse the nonlinear equation and be able to see exactly what caused an event.
Now, this is utterly useless if you want to apply it to what ordinary chaos theoretical physics focuses on. However, there are other areas this could be used.
We could use this method in the biochemistry field and take what's left of broken down matter and reassemble the genome of long extinct creatures (Jurassic park anyone?), or use it in the Naval or AirForce to be used as kind of a reverse tracking method (allowing someone to test an area of air or water and see if an enemy craft has previously trespassed). It could be used in detective work and allow us to open the gates for computer ran law enforcement or allow us to read the unclear history of other planets. All it would take is the help of some computers.
So, what now? What do you guys think? Where can we improve upon this theory? Help me out with this guys, I want today to be the day 4chan made a huge ass contribution to the scientific community. Discuss.
You don't understand non-linear equations, you don't understand Chaos theory and surely you don't understand how mathematics work. Your idea is laughable to say the least. Delete this post, you're making a fool of yourself.
>>8173471
Fuck you too anon.
Can you at least nitpick instead of just give up? I'm looking for input here. I'm not the average faggot who'll just shut out constructive criticism. I'm looking for exactly why the whole concept sucks and deserves removal from these boards, as you put it.
Never mind faster than light travel.
Is it possible for us to travel at light speed? Half light speed, a quarter of light speed?
That's all we'd really need to explore the nearest stars.
No, maybe and yes.
>>8172999
No, yes, and yes.
