???
>>16586669In order to understand the stochastic case, it is first necessary to understand the deterministic case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellman_equation#A_dynamic_decision_problem
Maybe this.
What do you big brains have to say about starting STEM later in life? I'm a humanities fag who is almost thirty with prestigious degrees from US top whatever schools. I feel like I missed out on the science bus. I would like to go to med school or learn software engineering. What is my prognosis?
>>16584427OP here. Not privileged at all. I came from a lower-middle class background but did stuff like Calculus AB and Physics C and all that jazz when I was younger and got good grades and got a scholarship. I just wasn't disciplined enough for STEM the first time around. I can't leech off my parents forever. Any other ideas?
>>16584411>What is my prognosis?It's obviously not a great idea if all you care about is money. You only change careers later in life because your previous career didn't work out and you have no other choice, or because you're interested in a new career for reasons other than money.>I would like to go to med school or learn software engineering.A lot of people get into med later in life because they get disillusioned with their careers and would rather spend their time having a direct, positive impact on people's lives. Going med to begin with is a rather bad financial decision overall i'd say, the amount of money you make can be quite big but isn't all that impressive given the sheer time commitment and lifestyle difficulties, generally if you're smart enough to get through med school and become a doctor you're smart enough to make better money in less time in other fields, you need to want to be a doctor.Software engineering, not my cup of tea, no opinion.
>>16584411Don’t go into software. I finished my BS in ME at 28 after having to drop out the first time around (untreated bipolar disorder). Unless you have great soft skills, software has has too many turboautists that can out code you, and AI is going to eliminate everyone below the 50th percentile. STARTING pre med at 28/29 can be tricky. Assuming you have all gen ed and elective credits, it’ll still take 2 years to finish pre med. 4 for med school. 3-7 for residency. You’ll be at 37-41 before you become a full fledged doctor. BUT- if it’s something you really think you’d love, go for it. The money is still decent, and you really will make a positive impact in a lot of peoples lives. And at some point you’ll be 41 anyways. Ask yourself- would you rather be 41 in your same field, or 41 and a doctor?
>>16584411Learn to code, literally.
“Marry, and you will regret it; don’t marry, you will also regret it; marry or don’t marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the world’s foolishness, you will regret it; weep over it, you will regret that too; laugh at the world’s foolishness or weep over it, you will regret both. Believe a woman, you will regret it; believe her not, you will also regret it… Hang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will regret that too; hang yourself or don’t hang yourself, you’ll regret it either way; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the essence of all philosophy.”―[math]S\varnothing{}ren\text{ }Kierkegaard [/math]
If men only need baldness on one chromosome to go bald then why do over 80% of bald men have bald fathers
>>16585772That's your belief. The Han believe they are a completely different species than non-Han. They do not believe they are related to Africans at all.
bump
>>16585373Envirnomental factors?
>>16585373Oh i get itYou will inherit the hair of your mothers father, thats a fact.Daughters of bald dudes are not appalled by baldness and marry bald dudes.Bowling ball society will turn into its own hairless race in less than 500 years, because we're to cool for powdered wigs(clown world) and appsrently women can pick and choose who they marry (clown worldx2)Btw if youre really worried about it just get a wig, picrel is bald but that sexy wig made her one of the most prominent pornstars, until she said publicly its a wig and the dudes wanking it at home looking at the pixel images of fake tits were appaled by it.LomaoLalomoLomoloa
>>16586710>Lomao>Lalomo>LomoloaYou are so fucking cool funny and edgy.
>what is this all about?https://rentry.co/cr_general>/sci/ anon found a way to safely and reliably activate yamanaka factors, repairing your worn out body and reducing cellular age. what I wanna know is, does this really do everything we need to fully restore ourselves? how long would that take? does this really address everything? seems like it addresses a lot of the problems people have on this board.>>16584603>we just need something that rebuilds the telomereshere ya go friend, just activate those yam facs https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3317569/>>16585874>cant sleepthat’s a core benefit of the stack>>16574521>Still can't come up with a reliable solution for baldnessand its even growing new follicles back, allegedly. why is it that this is the only place talking about this?
>>16586666ok so what do you buy and consume for this then?
>It's a two step processI DONT GET IT>Lists ingredientsWELL IF I CANT UNDERSTAND IT MAYBE THATS WHY ITS NOT ON THE NEWShttps://youtu.be/e1aUaVNMTfc
For those who didn't notice, the moral integrity of the United States depends on believing the sitting president can't understand OP after he has been repeatedly debriefed by WH staff. That's the fucking steaks dude, better we just believe the dude is too smart for the president to understand and get on with it.https://youtu.be/EwvV_YOYa14
Why do I not understand water?
What gets me is how we keep sidestepping that the DNA cassettes are proven in lab environments to work after only some of the adjustments that have been brought up were implemented (it was proven safe before that extra step for error correction) without causing teratomas and there is no way that approach are any more safe than this is.
check this guy out, I love crazy math contrarians explaining their theories.https://www.youtube.com/@NewCalculushttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jujZaEpAhvc
>>16585179Imagine being the first guy to promote the number zero, and the responses about "How can nothing be a thing? Listen to yourself, schizo-meds-lmao!"
>>16585179>from the outside, schizo retards and mega geniuses look quite similarNot really. You can usually sniff out crazy the same way people sniff out any scam if your IQ is above room temp.The retards who fall hook, line, and sinker for the latest THE TRUTH ABOUT MATH AND SCIENCE THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW bait videos are the same suckers who will believe the IRS wants them to pay a $10,000 bill using Fortnite gift cards.
>>16585672>why is it so easy to troll all STEM graduates with shit like...because those STEM graduates are autistic about what they know they know as well as what they know to believe & the schizotrolls are autistic about shit the believe to know as well as what they believe to believe
>>16586223yea, but at least Mandlbaur was honestly insane. he wasn't a troll by any measure. or El Arcón/whatshisname, although he was a bit borderline and did troll a bit/keep upthe charade in his saner moments. anyway, these people are okay. flat earthers, 1 = 0.999ers etc. are obvious trolls and make me think of violence.
>>16583533>New CalculusThe following is an excerpt from Peter J. Olver's alternative calculus lecture notes (https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~olver/ln_/cc.pdf):>"I started thinking about the topological definition of continuity, [12]. In brief, a function is said to be continuous if and only if the inverse image of any open set is open. This sounds very simple — and certainly simpler than the limit-based definition used in calculus. And I started wondering why not try to develop basic calculus using this as the starting point, and, possibly, eliminating all references to limits, epsilons, and deltas while still retaining rigor. And, after some thought, I realized it could be done. Continuity is basic, and limits, including limits of sequences, and derivatives follow from it in a reasonably straightforward manner, while bypassing epsilons and deltas entirely! You will see the results of this line of reasoning below.>Not only can the development be made completely rigorous, I believe it is more elementary and eminently more understandable by the beginning mathematics student, who will be better able to appreciate the rigor behind the calculational tools. Moreover, this approach introduces them to the basics of point set topology at an early stage in their mathematical career, rather than having to start from scratch in a later course in the subject or in preparation to study real analysis".I sure hope the "new calculus" of the distant future, "Neo-Stewart", will be something along this lines, maybe together with some non-standard analysis (a là R. F. Hoskins, i. e., https://archive.org/details/standardnonstand0000hosk) or more filters instead of limits. There's also honors calculus textbooks from the past like Thurston's which argue that it is more elegant and at the same time easier and more illuminating to think in terms of [math]\epsilon[/math]-neighborhoods instead of the traditional but dry full [math]\epsilon{-\delta}[/math] statements:>>16515492
I'd like to preface this post by apologising in advanced for asking a question that has probably been asked a thousand times already, but I don't know where else to ask. I don't use r*ddit, or d*scord, and none of my friends are into mathematics.My situation:Intermediate Algebra (Blitzer) - done all odds, and all end of chapter testsCollege Algebra (Blitzer) - done all odds, and all end of chapter testsPrecalculus (Blitzer) - done all odds for trig onlyBook of Proof (Hammack) - 1/3rd through, doing all oddsHow to prove it (Hammack) - 1/5th through, doing all questions (found solutions manual online)My goal:Precalculus (done) -> Proofs (work in progress) & Calc (I am here!) -> Analysis -> Linear Algebra -> Abstract Algebra -> Number TheoryI need a calculus book that fits these criteria:- Good for self-teaching, so must have many examples, questions, and answers to at least all the odds, or a solutions manual.- Some rigour, but not too much as I'm not fully confident with proofs. I do have a little bit of experience with proof by induction.- No physics, no engineering. I don't care about applied mathematics.Thank you.
>>16584026I posted a fake data snippet and Chan deleted the post of epidemiology studies
>>16584002>read different books in tandem?If one initially doesn't understand something in a textbook, then one can read the same thing in another textbook.Plus "sleeping on it" is important.>Do you think this is a good idea?I don't know.You're better off without my advice.
>>16583527Do linear algebra before analysis, if you want my 2 cents
>>16584362OK, tweaked it according to this: https://www.susanrigetti.com/mathPrecalculus -> Calc -> Proofs -> Linear Algebra -> Abstract Algebra -> Analysis -> Number Theory
>>16583527>I need a calculus book that fits these criteria [...]You can't go wrong with older textbooks like Apostol's and Spivak's
[math]/\mathfrak{mg}/[/math]Deutsche Mathematik editionTalk maths, formerly >>16534183
>>16583914>I enjoyed math in school though I never had to do anything proof based or rigorousrepliers missed the important part of the postmath is completely different after you introduce proofyou don't even know if you like math until you try proof
>>16586452Not just that. There's also research level math which is again completely different from the undergraduate proof-based math.
>>16586659it's not as big a change though, the end of undergrad can be pretty close to researchhigh school math however is just calculation
>>165625092+2=4 Quick Maths
>>16586667Not really. Undergrad math is very elegant. At the end of undergrad, you'd be doing what? Stuff that has largely been done in early 20th century. But current math is just extremely ugly, and disorganised. You would simply have to take results from subjects you know nothing about at face values. What you'd be doing would seem to have absolutely no correlation with real life. You'd be reading 10 page long proofs on results that you have no idea why anyone would care about. I mean even stuff like functional analysis, differential geometry and whatever people learn at the late undergrad level is still fairly motivated and organised, but bleeding edge math is just absurdly soul crushing. That is, unless you are number theory autist.
What killed scientific progress?Where is our flying car?Lol jk we all know the answer it's overregulation and fearmongering.
>>16577749All supposed problems with flying cars people cite are circumvented with the slightest bit of forethought.You wouldn't actually let people fly flying cars themselves they would be controlled by auto pilot.You also wouldn't replace every ground car with a flying car anyway you would reserve flying cars for emergency vehicles, taxis and the super wealthy to reduce ground traffic.
>>16579602Such a retarded response.So there is no room for improvement on helicopters?
>>16583575you're just poor >>16584787Imagine a billion jeets with nuclear power
>>16577444People confused scientific progress with technological progress. We have the science we'd need to make flying cars, we've even built some one-offs. We don't have the infrastructure, legal and social conditions to roll it out on a big scale, so it doesn't happen.
>>16585785This. The retard you replied to probably is like "why isn't ChatGPT discovering things for me??" in his daily work.
The calculator says that this radical sum equals 1 but I can't find any proof. Can you help?
>>16586665Here's a hint: [math]1^{3}=1=1^{2}[/math]
>>16586665wolframalpha
If red color is RGB 255,0,0and Yellow color is RGB 255,255,0does it mean that yellow is brighter than red, at least on computer monitors?if not, why not?What about 50% gray 127,127,127? Is it more bright than 255,0,0 red?127+127+127 is bigger than 255+0+0
>>16583586tob jej, y tho?
>>16582599>>165826371 day
>>16582599>>165847030 days, I'll help, and I'm merely theorizing here. same way in the printing world adding more colored ink helps adding to expand the achieved color gammut, same thing MIGHT be possible in the digital display world, just an example, and it is going to be most likely wrong, add an orange additional thingie to the existing rgb ones, that way you'll have more effective color rangewhat do you learned folk think?
>>16579077>I think that is physically (or whatever the name, Dr.) incorrectWrong, it is correct.Human eye or brain responds more to green than red.Yellow is a hue that is a mix of green and red.So if you send yellow light with same measured power as you send green, the green should be brighter for humans than yellow.
>>16586237explain lab lightness values then
What her academic qualifications?
>>16585907for me, it's Sabine
>>16585901is that the chick that got some Keira going on?
>>16585901What they get wrong about AI is assuming that statistical models are intelligent.
>>16585901I just got my 5090 and set controlflag.conscious = 1 and now I am a billionaire.Can't believe they accidentally invented it too lmao
>>16585907>Five head>eye candyWell, guess it might be true when compared to most science YTers.
>two fermions can't occupy the same state at the same timethat makes sense, two objects can't be in the same place at once, that's dumb>however two bosons canhuh? how is this even possible? why do fermions act normal but bosons don't? so I can have all the matter of the universe in a single point in space?
What studies have been done to determine the optimum level of stress on a human to achieve maximum output?
>>16584371We simply swap the prizes. I also wanted to test a scenario where you got the Rock at one side and prime twink bussy on the other, but my peers said it was too much. Cowards, science cannot be shy
>>16582220First off you are assuming a relationship of achieved output (whatever that means) to stress levels. That this is the case is unclear. Some achievements might only be achieved on very low stress or high stress or anything between or it could be independent. Your question is loaded.
>>16584297>to be left the fuck alone
Yerkes-Dodson makes sense -- there's an optimal pressure for complex tasks but mice can't get frazzled while doing simple tasks. Reversal theory should offer a different conclusion but it doesn't make sense.
>>16582220Based on police shooting videos, it is very clear that easy tasks are impossible for monkeys which confirms half your hypothesis in a statistically relevant matter. I also turn to the sophistication of monkeyball to confirm the other half.
why not use a spacecraft towing a giant magnet to draw in debris and make a massive ball that burns up in reentry?
>>16585084Neat idea. Let's just do some field testing. Here, you go stand over on the other side of that field and hold up a big magnet, and I'll get 100 friends together to fire high-caliber rifles at you. We'll know your idea works if you can catch all the bullets
>>16585107Haha, jokes on you.He only needs to out run the bullets and he already has a head start. You'll never catch him.
>>16585084Because if you can collect it, it has far greater value for reuse than just dumping down the gravity well. Most of the satellites have valuable solar panels, batteries, electronics and antennas, perhaps a bit of remaining fuel too. Screap metal in orbit is also valuable.
Reminder - Earth is the only planet that we know of that has a perfect solar eclipse, since our moon happens to be about the exact same size as our sun when viewed from the Earth.Nowhere else in the universe does this happen.
>>16585442>militant athiest nihilists.>They're just arrogantwere they born defective like this or did something happen to them to create their awful personalities?
>>16585842>were they born defectiveYou have yet to notice that autism is the new normal. Our cultures raises, educates and (in)forms "people" who only acknowledge literal descriptions of objects following the socially constructed rules of logic, reason and language as "real". For example: "love" can not be observed as an object therefore to an autist "love" is a schizo idea. Although that doesn't explain why autists like evolution and big bang theory so much because those ideas are not observable as an object either.
>>16585439Oh kot gys
>>16574561>Earth is the only planet that we know of that has a perfect solar eclipse>posts pic showing Earth not having a perfect eclipseWhat could he mean by this
>>16584419>>All of the ridiculously unlikely conditions Earth experiencesLiterally yes. You're only picking the ones earth experiences. If we had a moon at geostationary orbit you'd be talking about how unlikely and meaningful that is, but since we don't, you count its absence for nothing.