The new /sci/ wikihttps://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki(More resources in replies)
To use MathJaX, put your TeX code between [ math ] ... [ /math ] tags for inline equations or [ eqn ] ... [ /eqn ] tags for block equations.[eqn]\zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^s} = \frac{1}{\Gamma(s)}\int_0^{\infty} \frac{x^{s - 1}}{e^x - 1} \mathrm dx[/eqn]Note: You may preview the output by clicking the TeX button at the top left corner in the quick reply window.Additional supported file type on /sci/ is PDF.Reminder: /sci/ is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics, not for helping you with your homework or helping you figure out your career path.If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to >>>/adv/ - Advice.If you want help with your homework, go to >>>/wsr/ - Worksafe Requests.
there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities, and... (infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and...) continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and.....(…)… you can continue this process forever. And you can continue that process forever. Ad infinitum. And that ad infinitum. And…(…)…
It just gets down to basic gaza people
>>17036012Cantor killed math. We need to free us from set theory.
>>17036167cantor didnt do it by himself. he has millions of miggers pushing his propaganda
Are you hyped for Hyper Kamiokande?>260 million liter water tank>is expected to detect a proton decay in the first time in history
>>17034344No shit. Why does it have to do with proton decay (OP)?
>>17034123woaw much science, very technology. how will this markedly improve my quality of life?
>>17034362>No shit.Then why does your silly post directly contradict that? And to answer your other question: I don't know.
I fucking cannot stand it at all that all particle detectors are is big tanks of water. The history of particle physics is nothing but tanks of water. In the future there will be bigger tanks of water and that's it. Fuck it.
>>17034159very carefully
/sci/entifically speaking, am I going to be ok if I die? Are we going to be ok? Please.. Tell me /sci/..
>>17036230Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
>>17036254So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
>>17036232Your assuming the existence of independent entities.
>>17036230The journalists in Air Force one would be ok, but not the President in the secret service decoy.People can't compare between each other.
>>17036230You already died. This is hell.
Solar eclipse - editionprevious >>17033000(checked)ESA stream:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRDx2xDR8NANasa stream:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSvCuSQhC3w
>>17036343It has given us an unprecedented show with the most powerful rocket ever, unprecedented views of reentry, and showed a novel method of booster and ship recovery, even if both are still a work in progress.
>>17036271Kek
https://x.com/Echo5550/status/2087578475108417660>I always see people talking about how the exterior look of Starship has changed a lot over the years, but not many like to talk about how much the internals have changed!>From S39 in 2026 all the way back to MK1 in 2019, so much has changed over the years.
>>17036351RIP the cubic kilometer, should've gone with 12m
>>17036319What’s so ITAR about the nosecone
I just want to know how to feel about this https://youtu.be/fjj5ffchfW8
>>17036339you will own nothing and you will work beyond the grave.
The gravity from the brain spinning up into Earth's space would still have a near field affect to the person it was it inhabited by. Some people who have had experiments with their dead physical form with other unknowledgeable species had to leave to area.
What are your counter points against it ?
>>17031072As i stare into the heavens i realize that i've been staring into a machine this entire time.
>>170362121. I didn't argue that hallucinations lack physical causes, so you either genuinely misunderstood what I was trying to say, or are misconstruing me on purpose. Specifically, I indicated that sensations cannot be the exact same thing as material, because material can be hallucinated and sensations cannot be hallucinated. You only have to point out one distinction between two different things in order to prove that they are not the same; you asked me to prove that sensations are composed of a different sort of substance than material, and I provided you with a critical distinction that demonstrates this point. You circled in on the word "hallucination" for some reason and responded with a rather bizarre strawman that had nothing to do with what I just said.2. I didn't say that obeying the laws of physics would indicate a lack of sensation or learning. Specifically, I indicated that obeying the laws of physics requires us to assume one-way causality between material interaction and the subjective conscious experiences that material interaction generates. This presents certain conceptual difficulties when trying to explain how the mind can obtain a model of subjective conscious experiences, because under epiphenomenal theories of mind the brain can produce them but cannot actually observe them in any meaningful way. In that case, the brain could learn things about stimuli, yes, but it would not be able to learn things about sensations because these would be mere by-products lacking any and all causal powers.3. You seem to be treating sensations as tautologically equivalent to information processing. My entire point was that this cannot be true, because an identical sensation can be interpreted as either pleasurable or painful depending on the subjective preferences of the person who experiences it. So, no, you haven't actually addressed this point, you just reasserted your perceived tautology in a circular manner and ignored what I had communicated.
>>17036294>I indicated that sensations cannot be the exact same thing as material, because material can be hallucinated and sensations cannot be hallucinated.This would only indicate that sensations are not a subset of the material if we took at face value that all material things can be hallucinated. If we don't accept that a priori, then we can be perfectly consistent in saying that sensations are a type of material thing which goes directly counter to your core point. In short, you appear to be begging the question by asserting a quality absent in sensation is universal to matter. If that is not the point you were trying to convey, then I fail to even see the relevance.>under epiphenomenal theories of mind the brain can produce them but cannot actually observe them in any meaningful way. In that case, the brain could learn things about stimuli, yes, but it would not be able to learn things about sensations because these would be mere by-products lacking any and all causal powers.Depends what you mean by observing "in a meaningful way." We clearly experience these sensations and can even feel conflicted on whether we enjoy them or not, eventually deciding on one or the other as exposure continues. This does not run counter to epiphenomenal theories of mind in any way. Just because they are not an independent cause in themselves, but rather a byproduct of triggering stimulus which is the "true" cause of future behavior, does not mean any of the things you are claiming.From a purely behavioral psych perspective, conditioning via reinforcement will tend to cause an animal to engage in more of the behavior that results in the target stimulus, even if that target stimulus was neutral prior to conditioning. Shifting frames to neuropsych, this would indicate something about the brain's physical wiring has changed resulting in positive sensations associated with that previously neutral stimulus.If I phrased any of that confusingly, I'm happy to elaborate.(1/2)
>>17036294>You seem to be treating sensations as tautologically equivalent to information processing. My entire point was that this cannot be true,I understand that's your position. I am explaining to you the flaws in your position. I'm not asserting that sensation is equivalent to information processing. You are asserting that it cannot be. The purposes of my replies to you is to explain that the contradictions you seem to think arise from such a position are not actually contradictions. Your inability to understand how subjective preferences can arise from material cause is your own lack ofunderstanding.
>>17036307>>170363091. I would like you to give me even a single example of a material item that you do not think it is possible to hallucinate.2. The existence of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) disproves the idea that an animal, person, or thing seeking more of a stimulus is sufficient to conclude that said stimulus is associated with a positive subjective conscious experience. And in fact, the opposite could be true. Therefore, you can't define pleasure in terms of apparent "reward seeking". Whatever pain and pleasure really are, they are conceptually distinct from the principles of operant conditioning, because you could hypothetically "condition" an institutionalized OCD patient to count a billion trillion grains of rice by associating rice counting with his or her other OCD tics, triggers, and behaviors. That doesn't mean that they would actually enjoy doing it, you'd just be hacking their brain, so to speak, into seeking out sensations that they might in fact interpret as excruciatingly painful.3. Subjective preferences which are metaphysical cannot arise from material cause, but subjective preferences that are mechanical can arise from material cause. My position is that the human mind is a chimera, with both a material and spiritual component, so that our revealed preferences are in practice a vague mix of these two influences taken together.
Nowadays, a doctor can invent that someone have various mental health problems and disease in order to commit that person to a psychiatric hospital and, in doing so, receive payment from the health insurance plan.Unlike physical illnesses, anyone with a medical degree can claim a person has a mental illness, without even proving anything, and have them committed.
>>17033439>seeing a doctorThere's your first mistake.
>>17033439This works both ways. Sometimes you just NEED those psychological disease to avoid certain problems with law. This feedback loop is closed and self sustained.
>>17033487you seem like spoiled bastard kid
>>17033439its grifter field, full of narcissists, one of easiest of "medical" job where you don't really need to do or know anything, just shove lobotomy pills into patients throat until they stop acting uppity
>>17035105what is the difference between all these jobs?neurologist seems like its more of a research oriented jobbut what does a psychologist vs a psychiatrist even do?
What the fuck is game theory? google/AI could not explain it to me!!
Is there a zero sum constraint or is that just a generalization?
>>17036334That would be a specialization, not a generalization.
>>17036333back to ree dit with that animal
>>17036342
>>17036334Cooperative games exist in game theory. The competitor was just an easy frame to start from. As long as you have multiple rational actors seeking their own best possible outcome, and their strategies to acquire said outcome influence the optimal strategies of each other, you have a game in game theory.
how come nobody has used AI to invent a real life limitless pill?
>>17035587why don't you do it?https://mistral.ai/
>>17035587if such a fast acting and efficient molecule existed, it would be so addicting it would fuck you up extremely quicklywith drugs there is no free lunchbtw cocaine feels very similar to what this guy experiences. fast onset, feel smarter / stronger / more confident. only it's mostly subjective (still works for the confidence)
>>17036094Okay but what stops a drug cartel from having a top quality druglab and an LLM service to invent highly addictive wonder shit?
>>17036096anon raped himself with his own hand even
>>17035587Redditt hasn't thought about it yet.
What the fuck were they thinking designing this piece of shit? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dTvUtXhLo0
>>17033222I wonder if you can feel it moving back and forth, if you're on the top floors, on a windy day
>>17033222Just watched the video.What a fucking nightmare
>>17033222They thought it would pay offhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
>>17033222>designingDid you watch the video you posted? According to it, most of the problems come from its construction, not only from its design.The real question is why engineers and the city building department let it happen in the first place.>>17035509I bet you can "feel" the pieces of concrete falling all over the surrounding area...
>>17035485Take your meds
New research shows China leads research in 90% of crucial technologies & ignoring this means we're living in a delusional bubble, where we still think the West is the Sci-Tech leader.I think a lot of people are in denial, or just can't accept that China is already the world's leading nation for science and technology. I can't blame them for their ignorance. Most English-language media studiously avoid mentioning it. Time and time again, I see topics like AI, space & robotics covered, with only developments in Western countries talked of, as if China doesn't exist. Despite the fact that it's now the leader in so many fields.The problem with complacency and ignorance is that it gives you a really distorted map of reality. You can't understand how the 21st century is developing without factoring in China, and ignoring China means you're being delusional.Source:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-04048-7https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/aspis-critical-technology-tracker-2025-updates-and-10-new-technologies/
>>16959946They're 1.5 billions and burning a ton of coal.Demographics combined with good IQ are destiny.
>>16960613Both have dementia but Trump has done more for the environment than anyone else by bombing Iran and causing the closure the Strait of Hormuz.
>>17033032If you don't understand why your IQ is simply too low.
>>17032908That’s fucking hilarious
Oh noes
Have you ever thought how fast we are all travelling though actual space?
>>17035957Why? You want to write me a ticket? Am I under arrest?!
>>17036181We just having a voluntary conversation at this juncture.
We cannot comprehend it but if you know the maths you can kinda tell that its really fast
>>17035957What do you mean? I'm not moving at all. It's just everything else that is moving. Oh, and I did not steal that cookie! The entire universe moved to where that cookie was in my hand, then moved back.
>>17035957fast implies distance (space) and time. I think Einstein showed they were manifestations of some singular force (spacetime)
US, France and China have AIs. Where is Germany's? In the past decades they were more into engineering and math than computers but they should nevertheless realize this is important.
>>17035441>This makes absolutely no sense.It's a nepotistic feudal structure where the serfs working full time on half paid jobs while the tenured professor sacks in all outcome.
>>17036155(cont.) If you wantto study an medieval benefice system, well the German Universities had conserved that for centuries. I was invited to one of the University meets Industry and after the chancellor of an 15000+ student university has done his klecture i had known it is hopeless. They are not even aware in their bubble that they are 10 years back. I lliterally needed a drink to digest that experience.
>>17034811AI is haram
>>17034847>Forgot to say the reason why. With enough power to compute statistical analysis you can basically create surveillance states that record daily moves by every human in the planet, and through the sorting of the data, they can uncover any secret anyone h-*throws Molotov at you*https://youtu.be/BvlGs25tCxI
>>17035811>>17035814Cool. Hopefully it goes somewhere. The lead engineer (I think) at OpenAI during most important development phase was an Aachen graduate.
Imagine you're going to walk a ten mile distance. In every 1/10 of a mile mark there's a stack of gold coins in the ground. You know each stack has between 1 and 100 coins randomly. You can only see one stack at a time. Along the ten miles, you can only grab one stack with you, never turn back and never switch the stack once you have chosen one. You can only do this challenge once./Sci/entifically and mathematically speaking, what strategy should you use to secure the maximum amount of gold?
>>17036086I won't pay 49.9 to play the coin game because my expected return is[eqn]E[50X - 49.9] = 50E[X] - 49.9 = 25 - 49.9 < 0.[/eqn](To model the coin, I assume [math]X[/math] is Bernoulli distributed with parameter 0.5.) This is different from our gold situation, where the expected return after giving up the 49.9 is positive:[eqn]E[Y - 49.9] = E[Y] - 49.9 = 50.5 - 49.9 > 0. \qquad (Y \sim \textrm{DiscreteUniform}(1, 100))[/eqn](In the above [math]Y[/math] denotes the number of coins in the final stack.)
>>17036119-24.95 * 998 (average entrance cost) + 50 * 998 (average result of entry) + 74,95 * 1002 (average non-entrance result)-25 * 1000 (average entrance cost) +50 * 1000 (average result of entry) + 75 * 1000(average non-entrance result)Why don't you count the money left on the table tho:1. Where did it come from?2. Where did it go?
>>17036073>If you had 49.9 dollars and I offered a game of flip coin where you pay 49.9 dollars to play, but if you win you get 50 dollarsThat's not the problem. You would pay 49.9 dollars for a ticket that has a payout of 1-100.
>>17032754If the stacks were not independently random then you grab the 100 coin stack.Generally you do a choice algorithm where you grab a stack if it is a certain size or larger ans that minimum threshold decreases as the number of stacks undiscovered decreases. The probability equation builds backwards where theblast stack you have to take, the 2nd to last stack you take 51 coins or greater. While the 30 stacks you probably aren't accepting fewer than 90 coins.Just build it backwards where you take if the result is greater than the expected outcome of continuing.With the range of 1-100 the last expection is 50.5, which is why choice 99 is 51 coins. Choice 98 is something like 100*(1 - (50/99)^2) = 75 coins.Choice 97 is 87 coins.I probably did the math wrong.
>>17036168Sorry, idk what you're saying/asking here. All the money is accounted for in my calculations, no?In the gold problem, the money I'm leaving behind (provided it's [math]\leq 50[/math] coins, since the number of coins is an integer) is worth less on average than an opportunity to decide on the final stack.
