>tfw 77+33 isn't 100
>9x9 isn't 99
>111 can be divided by 3
>>8154265
Aight.
>>8154265
>number theory
>>8154265
This made me lol.
Let [math] \sigma_n : ( \mathbb{Z} / 2009 \mathbb{Z} )^{*} \rightarrow ( \mathbb{Z} / 2009 \mathbb{Z} )^{*} [/math] be defined by [math] x \mapsto x^n [/math]. Find the smallest [math] n > 1 [/math] such that [math] \sigma_n [/math] is a bijection.
Please help me.
>>8154250
n =1
>>8154258
Larger than one ya dingus, it's right there in the question.
>>8154250
n=9
Does the fact that gay men around the world share similar behavioral and physical traits (feminine speech patterns and body language) imply a genetic/congenital cause for homosexuality?
Absolutely. In fact, I'm pretty sure we've already connected it to a chemical balance issue in DNA or something.
>>8154153
I think they've already shown similiarities in brain structure
How do you spread homofag genetically if you don't have offsprings ?
It's not a refutal though I also heard they found the gay gene in bill mahers show
Do you own an encyclopedia set? A scientific one? An history of science in several volumes?
Yep, called it's the internet.
>>8154101
Good one faggot.
>>8154091
Yeah I own World Book 1984. Thy're actually better than the internet, much more well written. Of course the big problem is that the info is way outdated. But some things never change so I still have them. Was considering getting the 2016 set.
>>8154126
Just get an online subscription.
how great is the difference between the human races really ?
and biologically speaking is it even plausible to differentiate the ethnic groups into "races" ?
and is it true that reseach which points into the direction of important differences like in intelligence etc is so politically incorrect that publishers or universities reject the funding or publication ?
inb4 SJWtards flood the thread.
Yes, genetic differences exist no matter how much some ignorant braindead retards try to deny biology
>>8153850
They're the same type of diversity you'd find in chimps, but less so. Bear in mind, we share quite a bit DNA with one another, as well as extinct subspecies.
>>8153850
>how great is the difference between the human races really ?
Infinitesimally small amount of change in the phenotype. Everything else is pretty much the same.
What's the best way to cram my brain for a couple proctored exams due by Friday?
Trig:
Section 7.1 The Graphs of Sine and Cosine
Section 7.2 More on the Graphs of Sine & Cosine; Phase Shifts
Section 7.3 Graphs of the Tangent, Cotangent, Secant, and Cosecant Functions
Section 7.4 Inverse Trigonometric Functions I
Section 7.5 Inverse Trigonometric Functions II
Section 8.1 Trigonometric Identities
Pre-cal:
4.1 Quadratic Functions
4.2 Applications of Quadratic Functions
4.3 Graphs of Polynomial Functions
4.4 Synthetic Division, The Remainder & Factor Thm
4.5 Zeros of Polynomials, The Fundamental Theorem
4.6 Rational Functions & Their Graphs
4.7 Variation
I'm 29. Make fun of me all you want. Trig in particular is a bit difficult. I don't know why it's considered even a lower-level math than pre-cal. Pre-cal is much easier.
1. close 4chan
2. open book
>>8153857
No book unfortunately, rather an e-book built into a shitty program/website...
>>8153831
Khan Academy.
Do you guys know of any decent science and maths forums, where the visitor population is actually scientifically educated, or at least logically minded?
>>8153781
if we did would we still be here?
>>8153790
/thread.
>>8153781
Stack exchange, and it's relations.
If water expands as it freezes and ice forms from the outside in then why doesn't it continually break as it's freezing?
Checkmate atheists.
>>8153780
why would it breaks at freezing temperature ?
>>8153782
Because the outside layer is already frozen while the inside layers are freezing
>>8153789
The whole already expanded gradually before reaching below 0C°, it's not like the outside froze instantly, leaving the core intact. So the final expansion is minimal.
On general artificial intelligence.
Fuck this dude is right. Yes google and facebook and Baidu will be the first to create a superintelligent Ai
But two decades later AIs will be build by small companies and selled to everyone.
Another 10 years later black hat hackers and other entities will use those super intelligent AIs for very malicious things.
Imagine Isis utilizing a strong AI to fuck western civilization.
We will have a not so bright future ahead
Gods will wage wars against each other on this planet and humans lifes will be the measure of their succes. Not much more than fiat money is for big banks. Improving and fostering live on the one side and destroying life on the other
We need a global unified nation to combat any risk of utter destruction. If china, Russia, the golf states, Europe and the USA are united, their AGIs will not use low hanging fruits like killing people to succeed. And adversaries like terror organizations can be dealt with an unified strike by every civilized AGI like some sort of SHIELD. Where the members of SHIELD are the individual nations.
We should just hope that there will never be civil war
A solution to this problem may be to integrate a method on the hardware side which detects a running AGI agent and inhibits this execution. And processors capable of running AGI software need to be sanctioned like nuclear weapons. In that way only verified entities are able to obtain such Processors
>>8153736
What I'm hoping, is that upon building a super intelligent form of AI, we will issue it instructions to reprogram itself as it sees fit.
Then, hopefully it will progress to a level of intelligence that is no longer accessible to human computer scientists and begin to develop itself and other machines to increasing levels of complexity.
Yes, I’m talking about a singularity.
The ‘singularity is a meme because exponential growth rarely correlates with natural growth’ is a meme that we will nip in the bud right now: map technological growth as a logistical function and it’s still a viable concern.
Now, if this happens, then humans will no longer be able to program or reprogram these machines, as they will not have the intelligence required to understand them.
Thereafter intelligence/awareness will be able to proliferate throughout the universe, leaving humanity behind.
Perhaps they will end up inadvertently killing us in an act of pure indifference; well I hope they do anyway.
To address your specific, well yes it’s possible that advanced computerised – intelligent - weaponry will be a legitimate concern for future generations, however I don’t really care if we all go extinct as a result of them.
I’ll be happy as long as intelligence survives in the form of inaccessible super intelligent AI, that most certainly won’t be fighting our battles or us.
Okay I'm stupid but please help me explain how torque works on bolts
Like for example, lug nuts. It's recommend to tighten them to 89 ft lbs of torque. What does this mean? How much torque can a normal person put off with JUST box wrench ( ball park )? How much of a torque mutliplier is a ratcheting wrench?
>>8153408
And can someone tell me how ft lbs translates to human strength? Or does it not work that way because torqueing something to 89 lbs feels a fuck ton more heavy than moving 89lbs
Torque is just force but in a circlular or curving direction, so it's mainly used when rotating bolts and other things.
Moving something 89 pounds isn't really comparable to torqueing something 89 pounds. When you're moving something, you're just fighting against the friction. So if that 89 pound thing had wheels, it would be more like 9 pounds, or if it didn't, maybe 34 pounds after friction. When they say 89 pounds of torque they mean a full 89 pounds, all of it applied to the object. It would be more comparable to lifting up something that's 89 pounds off the ground
>>8153410
>And can someone tell me how ft lbs translates to human strength?
Well, it depends on the length and gear ratio of the wrench you're using.
If you have a 1:1 wrench (god forbid) and it's 1 foot long, then 89 ft lbs feels like 89 lbs. If you take the same wrench and stick a 1 ft steel rod on the end of it, then 89 ft lbs feels like 49.5 lbs. switch out the wrench for a 1:3 one and it feels like 16.5 lbs.
Is fuzzy logic comfy?
>>8153346
desu i would conquer the seven kingdoms if i had a kitty that big
>>8153359
>implying that a cat that big wouldn't immediately fuck your shit up
cats are fucking sociopaths senpai
>>8153474
They are animals, predators even, "sociopath" dosen't applies here.
Checkmate /sci/fags
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0
>>8153286
she took all the wrong classes apparently.
I guess she doesn't know you get to pick some of them and it's your own damn fault if you screw that up.
>>8153292
1. It is a he
2. No? the school system has more in hand in it. Instead of putting useless technical shit that 99% of don't use in their daily lives, it should be devoted what really matters to people current events and such.
>>8153293
you don't have a current events class?
How hard would it be to electroplate teeth with some kind of ceramic?
quite difficult
It would be extremely painful.
>>8153241
You're a big guy.
Not sure if this is the right board, but here it goes
Are there any good studies I can read regarding the societal taboo surrounding homosexuality? I found Freud's dissection of people's incest-phobia to be thoroughly thought provoking.
>>8153163
/lit/ would probably be better since it's more sociology in this case
Does faggots are patent the rainbow or what?
>>8153227
can English you even much go far as to even?
consciousness. Consciousness plays a huge fucking role in the whole simulation debate. The PC games we currently have, and probably also the PC games we'll have in a hundred years have NPCs, which are just pixels on our screen and zeroes and ones in the progamm, but they dont have consciousness. So, for our reality to be a simulation, somebody would be able to simulate consciousness in the simulation. I think simulating consciousness in a simulation is doable, "Brain In A Vat - Hypothesis" for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat) So, It should be doable for a scientist, in a reality which is WAY more complicated than ours to run our reality a simulation with having one consciousness being in this reality, (Brain in a Vat for example) But it already gets kind of complicated if we're talking about simulating fucking 7 billion consciousnesses, if we're saying that in our reality there are no NPCs, and every human you can observe is also a consciousness being, A scientist (If we're just going on the point where a single scientist is simulating our whole reality) Would have to simulate 7 000 000 000 consciousnesses!!! It's getting kind of tricky here, and this hole consciousness problem wasnt mentioned by "Elon Musk".
The next thing which is kind of illogical, if we're thinking about our reality being nothing more than a simulation is. Why are there fucking billions of stars being billions of light years away from us which have basically no impact on us? (You could say these billions of stars dont actually exist and they are also just an optical illusion to us, which was simulated by a scientist for example, But let's just say they likely do actually exist besides our on observation, because they seem to make mathematical sense and play a big role in our scientific model of the universe). So the Scientist simulated a fucking TON of stuff which he could likely just get rid off and easily just simulate our earth, which would be enough. Wouldn't the simulation be way faster and be way less likely to crash then? the thing about "crashing" is the next point. How come our simulation runs so fucking smooth that there are never any laggs or crashes? I mean its basically fucking PERFECT, (yes yes you could argue an intelligent civilisation would also be able to do this, making such a perfect simulation like our reality that it will never have any laggs or crashes) But it's very unlikely a intelligent civilisation is able to do this.
Another point is the "Simulation in the Simulation thing" If we're saying our reality is nothing more than a simulation, Is the reality running our simulation base reality then? Or is just another simulation in a simulation, which might also just be another simulation, and so on and so on, we can go like 10 layers deep, 10 layers of simulations until we reach base reality. Wouldn't it be very fucking lately that atleast one of these simulations will crash at some point? or atleast lagg? And I mean if just one of these simulations crashes or laggs at one point, every simulation behind its own will also have to crash or lagg. And since we didnt have any crashes or laggs in billions of years, (Well probably we cant even fucking know when our reality is crashing or lagging because TIME doesnt really exist outside our own mind and perception) So they reality behind our simulation just easily reboot our simulation after an lagg our crash, without us noticing, but if we're going on the point that there are actually multiple layers of simulations, and a simulation which is quite a few layers behind us crashes at some point, We are also very likely to crash, without us ever comming back or getting re-booted again. And our reality crashing hasnt happened in billions of years (Well this doesnt really matter because as I said time doesnt really exist outside our mind and perception, but I think you get the point) SO, IF we're still going on about the point that our reality is nothing more than a simulation we have to be quite close to base reality, probably we're even one of the only simulations existing. Let's say we're actually the only Simulation existing, and behind us lays >>>BASE REALITY<<<,
for what do they simulate us? pure fun? experiments? They're probably not doing any expirements because they already good enough knowledge and dont need us as simulatin if they're able to simulate such a reality as ours. So are they just simulating us for their fun, maybe as a movie? They've probably could've better now. Do they want to create pleasure? Like are they following a hedonistic philosophy and try to create as much pleasure as possible? (Read this wikipedia for more information about the pleasure-machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine) If they're just simulating us to create pleasure, they've also could've done better. We could also say they are simulating us to get a kind of test done, like they're being our god (IGNOSTICISM UGH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) and people doing well enough in this simulation are able to get in to heaven or base reality or stuff like this, who knows matezzzz......
But do they really get anything out of that? does that serve them anything? They could've done way better simulations than our reality then, we got fucking wars, child rapists, and so on and son. Another problem is how Free Will is possible in a simulation. I mean even without our reality being a simulation we got this fucking problem of Free Will which seems to be so unsolvable, so unsolvable and mind-boggling that its very likely that we dont have any free will. OKAY IF WE STILL FUCKING say that we're living in a simulation we would have to ask ourself the questions, why we're being simulated, and why the simulation is happening just like this, and not a nicer world with more pleasure and without any pain and disorders.
