when will lightsabers exist?
>>7685193
Never, because they're dumb.
>>7685193
Sometime after next Thursday
>>7685193
They do exist. We call them flashlights.
https://sites.google.com/site/peeterjoot/math2009/gabook.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=Sg_uR57ZktoC
http://www.amazon.com/Geometric-Algebra-Physicists-Chris-Doran/dp/0521715954
Guy I knew in undergrad went on to do that stuff. Care to explain more about it, for instance what is the story behind the pic in OP?
>>7685135
Ok, looking for the straight poop on this. Is it really a new thing, or have they just taken existing things and renamed them?
Why can't we just make one huge breeding farm to save all the endangered species?
If they don't want to fuck we'll artificially inseminate them until we can repopulate their natural habitat.
Why is no one doing this?
Why am I only hearing about how polar bears and pandas are going extinct?
>>7685119
Let's be honest now, do we really NEED polar bears
>>7685697
probably
we don't want lesser predators who can eat fish to eat all the fish
pandas don't actually do much
>>7685119
>Why am I only hearing about how polar bears and pandas are going extinct?
'cause pandas are cute and polar bears sort of represent the possibility of what's going to happen to other animals as a result of global warming. Tbqh pandas are a rare example of an animal that deserved to go extinct but were saved because humans like them.
>Why is no one doing this?
'cause it would cost a lot of money. You have to pay for staff, land, food, and whatever kind of climate/environment the animal needs to be in to stay alive. You also have too keep the animals separate that way they don't try to murder each other.
It's sort of being done in the sense that zoos and aquariums exist.
>TFW we will never find a cure for cancer
>>7685076
That's a good thing. It helps prevent overpopulation in the first world you dumb autist
So, appearantly we humans are a tropical species, I just read about this right now. Even Europeans, Inuits and other folks in the north! How on Earth? I assumed that populations who live in colder climates for a couple of thousand years would have adapted to the climate. But it turns out, nope. We are still very much are slaves to warm air. The lightening of our skin, the changes to our hair and eyes are quite literally...just skin deep.
Now, if we accept this theory, does that mean that if we moved let's say an average European to a place with tropical climate, they'd benefit from it health-wise? If so, what kinds of benefits are we talking about here? Or, if they wouldn't get any benefits, why not?
False
I lived in the south hemisphere for 30 yrs, 12 of those I lived in the tropic of capricorn, now I'm living in the north
sure nordics thrive here, but they cannot wait to escape to some wet hot paradise. I thought I would love the winters, but I cannot get used to them.
ok, having seasons is nice, and the nature is gorgeous, but man... the fucking witner darkness makes me wanna kill
/end anecdote
>>7685073
Asians have puffy eyelids specifically because of an adaptation to cold. So, you are wrong, this whole thread is invalid.
thus math aren't any better than sociology.
> implying maths exist outside of our conceptual realm
maths isnt even real
So your house and a castle are the same thing to you? They're both constructions right?
What's the bare minimum number of individuals needed to produce a viable species population? If 99% of humans were destroyed, how many humans would be needed to "repopulate" the earth?
>>7684872
approximately 24
only 2 need to be female
>>7684876
sources?
if 99% humans were destroyed, there would still be over 7 million of us
Name one greater Scientist.
>>7684849
I know this is b8 but Tesla was the greatest engineer tbqh fäm
easy question
>>7684849
Edison
Which academic field studies and analyzes different approaches to science and mathematics using logic? For example, explains the scientific method and why it's effective using logic.
Philosophy
>>7684920
OP said "using logic" and not "using baseless opinions".
>>7684921
Aristotle invented propositional logic
Lots of great mathematicians were also philosophers
Your average humanities major isn't a philosopher
90% of 7th Year Chinese Math Students could solve this problem, prove you're smarter than a Chinese kid.
Prove that R ∪ S is reflexive if either R is reflexive or S is reflexive
trivial
<black box>
>>7684807
It's not. Let R be reflexive and S contain x !~ x. Then x∈S⊂R∪S
Sure you didn't mean to use "the other big U thingy"?
fuck off with your homework this is trivial as fuck
What is the usual distinction between Proposition and Theorem?
a subjective sense of importance
Technically,
[math]5+4=9[/math]
and
[math]5+4=10[/math]
are both propositions, the former is also a theorem of, for example, Peano arithmetic.
Colloquially, unprovable (w.r.t. a certain theory at hand) propositions like [math]5+4=10[/math] are not even mentioned in math books and the word is just used for less important theorems.
>>7684805
Not OP, but when would you choose when to use proposition, lemma, and corollary?
I recently got a book from Peter Pflichta, who trys to explain the rules of physcis with math. He claims to have derived constants like c, h and G from number theoretical aspects of his model of spacetime. I don't know much about math and can neither comprehend his theory or put it off as coincidence. What does /sci/ think about this?
Does your knowledge of math end before trigonometry or integrals? Or is the book like a textbook for a new perspective of very advanced physics?
>>7684815
It does indeed end before integrals. I know some basic rules, but there's much to catch up for me. Geometry and such, he describes nuclei as some sort of spheric structure with imaginary and real parts representing charge in a 4d non-euclidean space.
>>7684802
lambdoma
I have a pretty practical question for you guys
Some time ago i had the urgent need to write in a way that i could only read, i didnt know the best way to do it so i ended up replacing each letter with a completely different character that has nothing in common with the original letter. Now i'm quite fast writing and reading it so its very convenient but i was thinking: is it safe? how easy would it be to decipher my code having a text of +1000 words, knowing the language i write in, and given that i dont use any punctuation, space and capital letters?
Also share your techniques for your secret stuff
>>7684765
Assuming you consistently write it the same way yes someone could figure it out.
If you only write one message using a code however and then come up with an entirely different code next time then no they probably couldn't.
>>7684765
You're using a substitution cipher. Think about the regular distribution of letters; there's more e's than q's, for instance. In fact, there's a letter frequency table you can look up that tells you how frequent a letter is in a given codex. If we tallied up your letters and matched it with the letter frequency, we might not get EVERY letter, nor would we necessarily get every letter exactly, but it would be an excellent starting point.
TL;DR substitution cipher is highly insecure.
Hey op, I had a similar project a few years ago. Mentioning what that anon up there said, what I did was create characters for letters that were frequently paired together. Double L had its own character, "and" had its own character, anything that pairs with H, etc. Codes were my hobby at the time. It was fun but useless.
Prove to me, using only science, that science is real.
You cant.
>>7684626
Science is not real, its a set of theories that is excessively good at predicting reality.
>>7684626
Prove to me that your challenge is real, using only more challenges.
Prove to me that the universe is real, using ONLY the universe.
Protip:
>You can't
>>7684626
Prove math/logic are real using only math/logic.
Pro tip: you can't
"durr it disproves causality", so it's usable in basically any argument to deny a conclusion. someone's been insisting to me it's "scientifically proven" and linking to a wiki page that links to a hundred other pages with a hundred more apparently relevant links.
can /sci/ please summarize it so i can get over these people.
dude quantum mechanics lmao
dude randomness lmao
dude spookyness lmao
dude magic lmao
>>7684587
>lmao
lmao
>so it's usable in basically any argument to deny a conclusion.
No.
It's a theory of mechanics of thing in the world. It's applicable to a very particular realm of things and it's a mathematical framework in the first place, which physicists use daily. And it has applications for microscopic chemistry or also solid state physics.
Too tiresome to give a general summary - you'll just have more questions than gain, if you're so vague.
