Because computer science is a field of mathematics, teaching the shit employers want is categorically not CS.
Mainly though it is because schools are not interested in churning out employees as they are in creating researchers. Universities are research institutions which teach dumb 18 year olds so they have more money to spend on research and more researchers in the future.
Also all the interesting, high-level jobs at Google etc. do require a deep CS knowledge.
P = N * P
0 = N
>>7761353
this is not algebra. this is describing Nondeterministic Polynomial Completeness
>>7761355
In computational complexity theory, a decision problem is NP-complete when it is both in NP and NP-hard. The set of NP-complete problems is often denoted by NP-C or NPC. The abbreviation NP refers to "nondeterministic polynomial time".
Although any given solution to an NP-complete problem can be verified quickly (in polynomial time), there is no known efficient way to locate a solution in the first place; indeed, the most notable characteristic of NP-complete problems is that no fast solution to them is known. That is, the time required to solve the problem using any currently known algorithm increases very quickly as the size of the problem grows. As a consequence, determining whether or not it is possible to solve these problems quickly, called the P versus NP problem, is one of the principal unsolved problems in computer science today.
While a method for computing the solutions to NP-complete problems using a reasonable amount of time remains undiscovered, computer scientists and programmers still frequently encounter NP-complete problems. NP-complete problems are often addressed by using heuristic methods and approximation algorithms.
ITT: facts that blow your mind
If we had birds similar to horses in pulling power, planes would have been possible before the invention of the internal combustion engine.
>>7761332
>fact thread
>OP contributes nothing
>>7761332
If we had coal with an energy density of uranium, nuclear fission would never have been invented.
>The more you know.
>>7761338
>humans dont explore and invent for the hell of it
If you start a random facts thread, idiots will fill it will bullshit in no time.
how is it possible that we can see light from the beginning of the universe? Doesnt that imply that space is expanding at a higher speed than light?
>>7761258
who claims they know its from the beginning?
damn
>>7761260
well they said it was galaxy form 600 million years after the big bang
Is it true that some people are genetically incapable of understanding math beyond precalculus?
define "understanding"
Why does that house have two chimneys but only one fireplace?
Yes. It's called trisomy 21.
I need a sequence of numbers (and this sequence should be in a number system which uses a real number for a base, for example base-φ) which returns to the original number through the same operation being applied to each number. I am not a math student or even a student at all really, so I don't know if this is possible and I'm probably not using the correct terminology for what I'm trying to convey. This might sound a bit vague but I hope someone is able to help me. If you want to know why I need this it is because I am interested in circular narratives.
>>7761135
Reformulate your question. Makes no sense to me at the moment.
>returns original number through same operation
x+0=x
X*1=x
>>7761148
I will try. So lets say we have the following:
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H
And A=H.
This is a sort of hypothetical and abstract representation of what I'm looking for.
I have been reading about recursion a little bit, but I'm not sure if that's precisely what I mean.
Is spanking actually bad for kids, or do kids of stupid violent parents merely inherit (genetically) violent and stupid tendencies?
Are there any double blind randomized controlled twin studies on this or is it all correlational bullshit?
>>7761106
who knows
better do some maths
>>7761106
If spanking was a genetic behavior, it would be more prevalent now not less.
Why do retards on /sci/ think genetics accounts for everything
>>7761106
I was spanked as a child.
I've only punted my cat across the room twice, seems I turned out fine
If one were to slice a tiny bit of my frontal lobe off and replaced the bit with a functionally identical piece of another brain, would I think the same? Would I be the same person? Would I still be conscious? If I would think differently, would I be able to remember the kinds of thoughts I had before the procedure?
Assuming that my personality/memories/thinking processes are not radically altered (that is, assuming that I'm the same conscious being as I was before, just a bit different,) If my brain were to progressively be replaced until it's a wholly different brain, would I still be conscious, just completely different?
If that previous question was a bit vague, here's a way of rephrasing it: Suppose my eyes were active through the entire process and I could see. Would I still be the same person seeing before I got a new brain as after I got a new brain?
Assuming that I'm not the same person as before, why do I have this perception of continuity throughout my life? Surely this iteration of my brain is different from what it was ten years ago. Why is it that I don't experience an interruption of my consciousness?
pic unrelated
>>7761080
I'm not looking for a philosophical answer, I'd like one backed up with facts. Are these problems unsolved?
>>7761085
It has been solved. We have plenty of data from all of the human brain transplants we have performed. I'm just withholding the information out of spite. /s
Nutritional Science almost never shows up on this board, so I thought I'd make a thread about it.
I have a couple questions about nutrition:
1. Is saturated fat or dietary cholesterol bad for you? Does your health decline the more you increase the intake of either of the two.
2. Why do students in medicine rarely have take classes on nutrition? Wouldn't nutrition be the most important aspect of health?
3. Why is there no consensus on Low Carb vs. High Carb diets? Why is there rarely any consensus on nutritional information, despite the amount of studies preformed?
Finally, it took more than 7000 scientific studies for the Surgeon General to make his famous report regarding cigarettes. This was most likely due to the fact that cigarettes were so deeply infused within our culture, and how Big Tobacco tried to fight change every step of the way. Can we apply this situation to the current state of Nutritional Science?
I started training for endurance athletics (long distance running and road bike racing) back in 2008 and the first thing I did was get my diet sorted not only for training, but for general health.
2. Nutrition is definitely the most important aspect of health next to physical activity (loading your skeleton, stressing your muscles, etc.) If you want to understand why nutrition as a science and as a conscious thought is suppressed in most of the world you are going to have to TRAVEL DEEP DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE AND SWALLOW BIG-ASS REDPILLS THAT WILL BLOW YOUR FUCKING WEAK, MALNOURISHED MIND INTO PIECES. WOW.
3. Carbohydrates are your body's main source of energy and also happens to be the most available form of energy to obtain from digestion (carbs are easy to break down). How much carbs you decide to include into your diet should reflect your activity levels.
If you are a degenerate piece of shit and do not exercise at all (failure as a biological organism / waste of life) and consume video games and anime all day I recommend eating less carbs.
If you exercise anywhere from five times a week to every day with high intensity or longer duration (hour+) then you need to maintain your glycogen stores with a sufficient amount of carbohydrates before training and within two hours after completion.
There are calculators for this shit to give you a rough idea of the proper ratios based on your height and weight along with what type of exercise you are engaging in.
>>7761041
Has there been any research to support your conclusions, other than anecdotal ones?
I am not trying to discredit what you are saying, in fact I agree with most if it. But why does this imply good health? If anything it makes it sound as if it only effects how much energy you want to intake, which really is more of an example of the idea of calories in vs. calories out.
>>7761044
What conclusions specifically? I'm not really trying to make any solid claims that aren't easy to fact check.
Does IQ exist, or is intelligence what you make it?
>debate it, faggots
It exists. Only low IQ faggots say it isn't real or doesn't mean anything to hide their inadequacy.
Shoo, shoo shitposter
>>7760977
It better, but probably not. It's outdated.
Is it possible that the our solar system, galaxy, or universe is an atom or atoms in a larger universe?
No.
Yes.
Maybe.
What Makes a Character: Deriving Non-Conformity
In the reduction of rational the standard definition intention within personality gives the variance of the elementary rendition of persuasion within the characterization of the standardized environment of which can be deigned that of a 'fit' in such; this implies that when suspending the characterization of a study of a environment you will find a simplistic chain of redactions that correspond with only minor confrontation with each other, this set of variances is systematic with the nature of what makes some more agreeable to others and vice versa.
Now, when adopting the premise that some of these elementary functions are to much of a supplicant to a point of over reacting to every sentiment and leaving no room for the confrontation that makes the grounds for scaled reaction or over baring to a point of leaving the rest of the groups set in a deformed wreck of insecurity does a balance begin to throw the boat of the group over like a wave leaving few traces of it having been in the first place and does each set of bodies acquire a new dimension of being that leaves for concurring elements of characterization to arise in their independent fermenting in which ever style they fall out into, this is a beautiful rendition of naturalization rational in group description, but I'll leave the semantics of that for another time; the point being made is that although non-conformity does exist, it doesn't exist very easily short of being groomed from birth and then placed with intention; and in this do we find that it's more social than that of being of more diverse interests or varying categorization of personal style.
What is it that makes the statement of being different; if anything it must be self definition, the difference between having the luster of depth that lets be that piece of stoniness of grounded platonicy with the fabrics of the world while still having a held belief of what could align them more justly...
>>7760950
It's ok if you want to talk about yourself you know. It's kinda sad to see you go on these sprees. I'm here for you.
>>7760963
I mean it. I got some time to burn.
C = Speed of causality (otherwise known as speed of light)
What if the speed of light really is something different and we just experience it this way?
Consider the following world:
In a far distant universe things are different. Distances between objects are measured not spatially, but as space-time vectors which denote how far spatially and how far in time the events differ. This unit of measurement is more more useful since someone who stays still still moves at v=c in a completely vertical line parallell to ct.
Now if all that is clear, consider the following absurd difference. Rather than flat 4D Space you are working with round hyperspheres. What this really means is locally, you can travel in a straight line but in flat spacetime we percieve this as a circlular motion. Consider an orbiting object, it is moving in a circular path. To stay in orbit you need an attractive force towards the center of the object you orbit around F = mg as well as a velocity that escapes the ground quick enough let's set it to v = 10 000m/s.
In curved spacetime, this circular path is actually straight. Because the unit you measure a straight line with is circular, all circular paths are also straight paths. Now to blow your mind even further, what is F=ma really doing? A free falling object that circles the object itself travels at a straight path which means it is actually not experiencing any acceleration. This means the force F=ma is not needed if we assume the curvature is affected by the mass of the object. Gravity can manifest itself as something that bends spacetime in order for people to agree on what an inertial frame of reference really is.
Now to blow your mind with facts some facts.
In flat space and time, or even just flat spacetime observers do not agree about:
- Distance between things (spatial difference)
- Distance between events (time difference)
- Order of events (past, present future)
Proving the first two are very simple, consider if you travel at v = 0.99c and you consider a train going into a tunnel at the exact same size as the tunnel. A "considerably" inertial object at the surface of the earth or even in space will both observe the object exactly disappearing then reappearing on the other side, you however at v = 0.99c relative to the tunnel and train will never see the train completely hidden in the tunnel as you will see both ends stick out slightly. This is because the train moves relative to the tunnel and contracts the space of itself this way. The observers watching the train agree on the fact because the train's time is contracted as well and thus it appears larger to them, however you at v = 0.99c percieve larger time contraction than the train and will see it moving faster than it really is as well as being much longer than it really is.
The last one is quite difficult to prove with an experiment but in theory it could be done and has been resolved. It is possible for me to see an event that will appear in someone elses future and we will not agree on the order of the events. You can make this difference as large as you like having observer A saying "They were in order X Y Z" but observer B saying "Y Z X". However, in curved spacetime this is easily modeled by seeing that the distance between the events and the observer differ, but they agree on the spacetime difference between the events. This fact leads to the conclusion that space and time are harshly intertwined and can not be seen as separate things.
Back to programming, normally when making a render frame you consider the frame rate. You wanna update some physics? Fine let's pass in 1/60 s and hope the framerate is equal. What happens if the PC is too slow or the update is taking huge chunks of time? We get delayed, slowed down and when the PC runs fast enough the animations themselves speed up. This is not good. What's a solution then? Let's pass in variable rates,
>>7760835
>someone who stays still still moves at v=c
>What is mass
that is the time it took to render the frame. If we are running 80fps, then we pass in 1/80s to the render method. This is fine in small quantities but easily gets out of hand when objects move close to the border then a large lag appears and suddenly the object moves through the wall with no collision.
This very model has a problem: Objects move in variable timesteps and thus there is no global maximum velocity or an agreeable constant of causality.
One solution is to agree on a maximum timestep, nothing can occur faster than 1/60 s and beyond that we can accept any timesteps. Anything beyond 1/60 s we experience we simply simulate at 1/60 s multiple times until we have a remainder greater than 1/60 s then we simulate the remainder. This solves the problem at first glance but runs into another problem. What if the simulation takes more than real time to run, and we run it at real time?
Well any small spike it experiences will make it try to catch up by doing more simulations. It will fail on those, and do more simulations and eventually it will die from falling behind too far and trying to do too much, and the simulation stops. The solution?
A constant of causality = c: the rate at which things happen
Always operate on this, and if you want to simulate say 3 seconds of physics you call the Simulation method with 3 as argument and asynchronously runs and responds in timesteps of c. The causality constant c determines the speed at which things can happen, per second.
This model closely looks just like our universe and can simulate gravity without force, circular paths without rotation and spherical expansion in straight paths.
Labyrinth riddle. Two girls (1 always lies, the second always teleschermi truth in a room with 2 doors) i remember that there was a pic with 2 more difficulties to solve im looking for this . One was like "any girl does not know anything about other girl existance"
>>7760748
Girls always lie.
don't know about the other one you're talking about.
but if the girls don't know about each other, can I explain them ? after all, the rule is only 1 question, it doesn't say anything about explanations.
(love the pic)
You can only talk once to the girls and even if you explain her second she would still not see her and She would answer "there are no other girls here" when you try to know about her answers
how do i become mediocre at statistics? i don't want to be good at it. i just want to be able to solve simple problems. i don't know anything about it but i know mediocre multi-variable calculus and mediocre linear algebra
>>7760552
>i know mediocre multi-variable calculus and mediocre linear algebra
>how do i become mediocre at statistics?
continue being you but with a focus on stats
I think you've got the mediocrity thing nailed tbqh
>>7760588
the thing is, i'd have to take a class on it. but i want to learn it by myself. is there a set of notes or problems for idiots or something like that
hehe
Has there ever been an Asian STEM professor who didn't suck ass?
I'm not a racist by any means. I go to a top 20 math / engineering school, so I'm sure these guys are great in their fields and everything and maybe even great educators in their home country, but as educators in English they're horrible 100% of the time in my experience.
All of the good ones I've had have been Asian-American
I've had some bad and some good. Probably more good.
Most of the Asian profs I've had have been good. That said, they've all been Indians who've been speaking English from a very young age, so I might have a biased sample here.
