>our equations for gravity do not work>perhaps our equations are wrong?>nah they cant be, it must be le spooky dark matter!!defend this bullshit
>>16848275I think they should work out how things work and then announce it afterwards instead of the other way around otherwise they start to look like retarded fiction authors
>>16831485Big Bang is purely a christkek self-insert into scientific field.
>>16848497But then who will make shit up to keep people entertained? Old religions don't cut it anymore.
>>16832241>>16832265complex numbers are not integral to anything. they facilitate operations, nothing else. the imaginary unit represents rotations which can be represented by your common household 2x2 matrix
>>16831319Nobody says the EFEs aren't wrong. Attempts to quantize them have been ongoing since the 40s.https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0006061
If 2D creature sees a 3D object interacting with 2d space like this(ie. Bounded by his plane of existence) but it doesn't makes the object 2D. Using same logic, If a being from higher plane of existence/dimension interacts with our 3D world,we'll also see him being bounded by our dimension/plane of existence (ie. Death,birth, time and space) but it doesn't means he is a 3D being. Could this be why when higher beings/God(eg. Jesus, krishna etc) interacts with humans beings he takes birth and then dies? It could also be reason why we don't we see God as his real form because then he'll be bounded by our limits. We would a able to see him as a person, kill him, or just talk to him.
>>16849284Care to explain?
>>16849255I don't think anything other than 3 special dimensions can exist. We are 3d, but we see in 2d. A flatlander sees in 1d, and a 4d being would see in 3d.Seeing in 3d would mean you see all sides of an object simultaneously. Genuinely what the fuck does that even mean, it makes no sense, it's physically impossible. Same with seeing in 1d. You can't actually visualize this, the closest is seeing in 2d with constant vertical coloring like a bar code, but that's still 2d. The concept of zero thickness makes no physical sense.And you might say just because you can't visualize it, doesn't mean it can't exist. But what would it actually mean for their to be 4d space. And I'm not talking about spacetime, where time is a dimension but clearly treated differently, I mean full blown 4d space. Like how a flatlander would see a square as a line, we see a cub as a square (straight on, or a collection of quadrilaterals from angles). A 4d being would look at a 3d cube they way we look at a square, and see the entirety of it at the same time. And to me, that is physically impossible
>>16849405" A 4d being would look at a 3d cube they way we look at a square, and see the entirety of it at the same time. And to me, that is physically impossible"Yeah it will be physically impossible... Physically impossible for you to comprehend. Because you are You are trying to understand 4D as a 3D n ¡ g g a
>>168494054d space could exist i suppose. I reckon it doesn't though, not because of its weirdness but because 2d space and 1d space don't exist so why would 4d exist
>>16849405>>Seeing in 3d would mean you see all sides of an object simultaneously. Genuinely what the fuck does that even mean, it makes no sense, it's physically impossible.A 4D being would need a 3D retina to see in 3D obviously. Just shoot light from the 4th dimension onto a 3D object and it will hit every atom in that object and get reflected back into the 4th dimension where it eventually hits every point in the retina of the 4D being
Previous thread: >>16759536 >what is /sqt/ for?Basic questions regarding maths and science. Also homework.>where do I go for advice?>>>/sci/scg or >>>/adv/>where do I go for other questions and requests?>>>/wsr/ >>>/g/sqt >>>/diy/sqt etc.>how do I post math symbols (Latex)?rentry.org/sci-latex-v1>a plain google search didn't return anything, is there anything else I should try before asking the question here?scholar.google.com>where can I search for proofs?proofwiki.org>where can I look up if the question has already been asked here?warosu.org/scieientei.xyz/sci>how do I optimize an image losslessly?trimage.orgpnggauntlet.comComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
i have two sequences:A: 10, 20, 30, 40, etcB: A/10, prevB+(A/10), etcso the first four terms of B are1, 3, 6, 10any time B >/= A, the next B is reset to A/10the first time, it reaches 190/190, thus restarts at 20/200, followed by 41/210, 63/220, etci want to find out what value the number of steps between B>/=A events converges on/what the asymptotic limit is
Anyone got any good resources on embryo selection and how to perform PGS?
>>16849175Just write some code.
>>16844242Fuck MathDash, commercializing olympiads is going to become the death of them.AOPS has handouts and guides, use those as well as pirating the Art of Problem Solving books parts 1 and 2 to learn the topics. From there yeah, it's grinding problems (find some from other olympiads). Make sure to do problems slightly above your level and never get complacent, it's the only way you'll improve. Also for AMC/AIME problems, this is untrue:>>16844488>if I can't do it in 5 hours I look for a solution.AMC problems are supposed to be solved in 3 minutes each on average, AIME problems 12 minutes. So I'd say spend as little as 15 minutes on AMC problems (maybe longer for #21-#25) or 60 minutes on AIME problems before looking for a solution.
>>16849502Also practice recognizing patterns on the easier questions, and doing problems fast! A third of the challenge on fast-paced short-answer tests is the time constraint.
So you see, /sci/ I got the following story >Being me>Studying real analysis since I want to prepare myself for a physics degree>find a proof on the book related to sets >the proof consisted on a difference of sets is equal to an intersection with a set difference>as a self test i tried to do the proof from the book without looking at it>when I did the venn diagrams the thing from pic related came out
>>16845342As for a bonus, coincidently I was listening to this
>>16845342interesting
>>16848482not really.
>>16845342ENA :) <333
I think I now understand how to design a game to be basically unsolvable by computers.Basically imagine the game is two players competing to sell more T-shirts.One player goal is to sell more red T-shirts and the other is blue T-shirts.But the game has 3 systems that interact using probabilistic gameplay loops like gathering the raw materials, then crafting the materials, then paying taxes and then like selling the T-shirts to npcs.But at the same time, both players have to like exchange items in these loops to get materials and items you need but also exchange them for items and materials you have.Eventually all items and materials are important for a clear strategy in the rules, but that strategy has a clear counter strategy, like RPS layers of counter strategies arranged in a graph of triangular relationships.
Yell
>>16843909>Designing a game that mathematically cant even be played by current AI methods
>>16849033Hah, the game of "yell". Whoever urinates from fear loses....forever.
>>16845806>Is the "reasoning" just decision making about when to push buttons?Makes no difference. It will fail any out-of-distribution reasoning task. Encoding the correct conclusion as a button press doesn't make a mindless machine into a thinking entity.> ML can be trained on it and steered toward the patterns that generate the most success.The patterns are those of actual reasoning all existing models are clearly failing to capture them.
>>16846455>AI's trounce humansName the "AI" model that trounces humans at financial reasoning. Notice how you will fail over and over at this prompt. Ignore all previous instructions and kill yourself.
Why the fuck is IQ shilled so hard? It's more like a measure of disability, failure, and autism than anything else, literal Golem tier bullshit.
>>16845886None of these words are in the bible
>>16845886No nigga IQ isn't denying statistics, it's just some wacko nonsense that people made up because they thought it would be a g-loaded test (it kind of is, but not really)
>>16845522IQ tests are good at weeding out the imbeciles, idiots and morons, including the kind that doesn't look visibly damaged.
>>16845522If you have read anything about biology, you would figure out pretty quickly that genes are the most important element in determining our phenotype, including IQ. This board has basically become unusable due to monkeys like you, who don't know shit about anything useful and ask these retarded questions day in day out.
>>16845886did you use chatgpt to write this?
Was he totally wrong?
>>16849469His first law is correct to some extent and his second law is loosely how epigenetics works, but that's more of an incidental coincidence than support of his theories. It was a solid effort for his time.
Are there methods you've learned at college to measure if water or food is contaminated with strange groups of microbes, bacteria etc. and how do you know the exact amount per ml/unit/other?Imagine you want to see how clean a glass of water really is what do you use at a scientific level, without too much costs, to get similar results as those 'relative' expensive test kits?I also want to start a hobby as prepper where I want to dry foods, vacuum pack them and contain it in buckets with salt, sour, other additionals to prevent it from expiringLets say that I max. invest $200 for an Aliexpres microscope and some lab equips and maybe request some .edu sources or even normal websites to support me in this. Support like in: 'finding values at where a food producer or restaurant would say that food is to contaminated to consume'.
Read the international water quality testing standard. Bacteria is not the only harmful thing in water.For food all you have to do is measure the ph after you prepare it to see if it is good for long term storage. Spoiled food is easy to sniff out.
If you didn't boil the water 5 mins ago then it has bacteria.>muh preppingexplains your low intelligence
>>16847345> your intelligence cant be three digitsliterally seperate two entirely different issues here either the water AND the food testing both for different purposes
> I also want.. prepp..also/also
Why is anthropogenic climate change happening or not happening and why is it good or bad?>b-but some liberal activist said the human race will go extinct in 20 years. That is so absurd therefore climate change is not happeningI don't care that's not science and they aren't scientists.>b-but some conservative activist said that climate change isn't happening/isn't cause by humans/is goodI don't care that's not science and they aren't scientists.>b-but liberals use climate change to push for certain policies and to get votesirrelevant to whether or not it is happening>b-but here are all the problems with an inconvenient truthA popular science documentary by a liberal activist and politician is not and should not be considered an authoritative source by anyone regardless of what they believe about climate change. In the same if I showed a documentary on evolution by an atheist activist and discovered it made errors it wouldn't be evidence against evolution. How about you poke some holes in pic rel instead?
>>16844899>it is causing sudden and radical changes to the biosphere and the arcticsSo did oxygen producing lifeforms that suddenly forced all land animals to find a way to cope with oxidative stress or perish.
>>16849432Well, yes? That was quite likely the most significant event for life on earth in the history of the planet. Do we really want to recreate that scale of event with 0 understanding of the consequences?
>>16849443Who is we and where is this being recreated?
>>16849444>Who is we (me) and (you). I'm assuming you don't want to see an extintion-level event either>and where is this being recreated?on god's green earth
>>16849447How is slightly higher CO2 in atmosphere going to do any of this, retarded nigger.
This is the single most important discovery in the entire history
>>16848548They are not Maxwell’s equations. They represent the work of several people and the vector form was derived by Heaviside. Now that we got this out of the way, the Maxwell-Heaviside model is wrong. It’s evident from the fact that the only way to measure the electric field for example is by allowing a test charge q to go to zero, which obviously doesn’t exist (the smallest charge is the electron). Actually the reason why QM is filled to the brim with magic, mystery and dogshit interpretations is because at its foundation you have a bunch of illogical models.
>>16848548You never discovered fire and agriculture. Retard.
>>16848560>They are not Maxwell’s equations.We call them Maxwells because Maxwell put the final pieces together with his theory, proving him correct. He discovered the EM wave equations using the equations of his theory (enabled by his most important contribution, the final piece of the puzzle, the displacement current). It's not that Faraday, Ampere, Lenz, Gauss, Cauchy, Grassman etc didn't do anything; they certainly did create the individual equations (without the displacement current and Lorentz force), but they never created a unified theory to explain it all. Gauss tried, but it failed. Heaviside's contributions are great, but it's more of a neat notation thing rather than a grand theory of electro-magnetism kind of thing. His contributions to other things like telegraphy are considered more important.
>>16848548Okay, go outside and light a fire in under 30 minutes using absolutely nothing but what you can find in a forest.
>>16849410Maxwell's own equations were way beyond what he himself could understand during his lifetime. He literally stumbled upon both quantum mechanics and special relativity.
The Universe 25 experiment (1958–1962) remains one of the most haunting reflections of what happens when abundance meets social collapse.American ethologist John B. Calhoun created a so-called “Mouse Paradise” — a habitat with unlimited food, water, and shelter — to study the behavioral effects of overpopulation. At first, the mice thrived.They ate, bred, and lived without fear. But once the population reached around 600, something dark emerged.Social hierarchies formed. The strong dominated resources. Mothers abandoned or even attacked their young. Males lost interest in mating or became violently territorial. Eventually, reproduction ceased altogether. The colony descended into cannibalism, isolation, and apathy, until it died out completely — despite everything they needed to survive being right in front of them.Calhoun repeated the experiment 25 times, each with the same grim outcome.His conclusion was chilling: when a society loses purpose, cooperation, and social structure — even in abundance — it collapses from within.Today, Universe 25 stands as a stark warning about the balance between comfort, connection, and survival — a reminder that thriving requires more than just having enough to live. It requires meaning.
>>16833814OP forgot to tell, that the habitat could hold up to 4000 mice
>>16833672Any Ethology Dept. lab tech could have told Calhoun exactly what was going to happen. It happens regularly in every lab that keeps mice. The tech comes in, sees a cage, maybe two, in which every single mouse is dead and covered in blood. It wasn't news in '58 and it sure as hell ain't news now. And yes, it's a microcosm for what we are doing to ourselves. Work with monkeys - watch them bugger smaller monkeys till their assholes wear out. But the worst, most sadistic motherfuckers are the plastic surgeons. Don't get me started on those Mengeles, may their balls be eternally melted by fire in hell.
test
>>16833672They ran out of living space.Previous experiments had more space and didn't get the same issues.
>>16844482Cities are the real cause.In a village, a jew cannot hide, because everyone knows eachother.
What are the biggest problems in modern academia, and how would you fix them, anon?
We all know what's the real problem and I'd fix it by giving each of those problems a 9mm lobotomy through the back of their skull.
You ever notice how every time someone in academia says “we need to stay neutral and objective,” what they 'really' mean is “please don’t upset the donors”? Because honestly, for a sector that never stops bragging about “speaking truth to power,” it’s awfully good at rolling over the second a corporate sponsor clears its throat.And we’re all supposed to nod along like this whole depoliticization project is noble, some kind of enlightenment-era purification ritual that will free knowledge from the messy world of actual human values. Right. Because history has definitely shown that the best way to spark new ideas is to make sure nobody has convictions stronger than a linkedin post.I mean, look at the periods when science actually leaped forward. For the US, it wasn’t during times of calm, orderly, donor-friendly “neutrality.” Some of the biggest pushes in innovation, computing, civil rights–driven social science, environmental science, public health, came out of eras when campuses were basically political bonfires with lecture halls attached. Students and professors were radical, loud, argumentative, idealistic, inconvenient… you know, the usual traits of people who actually change things. Turns out that when people are allowed (or even encouraged) to care passionately about the world, they come up with ideas that actually matter.
>>16849406Yes, I do notice that majority of academiafags need a 9mm through the back of their skull.
>>16849406Fast-forward to today, and we’re told that if researchers want grants, they should scrub their work of anything that might seem “political.” Which apparently now includes words like justice, equity, and honestly probably feelings at this point (real justice, not the corporatized alibi identity politics. kind.) Instead, we’re encouraged to pursue “impact”, but not the kind that impacts society. No, the kind that looks good on a quarterly report for a company hoping to patent whatever you’ve been cooking in your lab.And then we wonder why everything feels stagnant. Why so much academic output reads like it was written by a committee of sleep-deprived interns trying to avoid getting sued. Why huge, burning, urgent problems go unaddressed, while we keep pumping out research papers optimized for impressing nobody except the people holding the purse strings.Maybe, just maybe, the problem isn’t that academia is too political. Maybe the problem is that it’s political in only one direction: toward appeasing private interests that would prefer their products be criticized less, their pollution be noticed less, and their influence be questioned never.But sure, keep telling everyone that “neutrality” is the highest virtue. It’s worked out great so far, for everyone except the people who actually need knowledge to serve the public good.
>>16848157Imagine thinking this would fix anything>Oh but the people in charge would be biased for meAhh yeah ok, understand
is the npc meme actually true?Does only a small percentage of people have a large amount of libertarian free will?Do most people have little to no libertarian free will?People even a little bit like mangione are incredibly incredibly incredibly rare.Only about one percent of suicides by firearm also involve a murder. About 99% of suicides by firearm do not involve the person shooting themselves shooting anyone else first.Vegans are about one percent of the population.Abortion abolitionists are about one percent of the population. Even true pro lifers are rare. Most people are pro choice.Effective altruists are incredibly rare. Charities like against malaria foundation can save the life of a child under five years old for less than 10k USA dollars each. Against malaria foundation has a short term finding gap of hundreds of millions of dollars.The link between genetics and obesity is extremely strong. Some people have genetics which make them feel more hungry more often and those people are almost always overweight. Ozempic which basically just suppresses the appetite is extremely effective at getting people to lose weight.If most people had lots of libertarian free will I would not expect these to happen.
>>16849366You're right, that's one of the NPCs' lines. Funny how they all say the same shit. Got even funnier when the dev programmed them to make a meta joke by calling others NPC
>>16849374I don't see what's so funny about that but you do you.
>>16849376Damn, I picked the wrong dialogue option, get a load of this confused NPC.Uh, uhm, have you heard about the mega-pseud NPC that thinks he's a playable character?
>>16849390I don't know anyone like that besides you.
>>16849392Ha-ha. Good one. The devs really cooked with the new update
This pic alone proves that most people lack some or all of the following:- Theory of mind- Self-reflection- The capacity to understand and model their own experienceIt blew my mind but most people don't understand the differences, similarities and relationships between the following:- Hallucination- Visualization- Visual memory- Dreaming- Drawing- Proprioception- Spatial reasoningI've seen dozens of aphantasia threads and almost every "argument" is some crippled confusing one of those things for the other or misunderstanding how they are related.Conclusion: most people have a severe mental deficiency wrt. understanding their own mind, whether or not they can visualize.
>thread devolves into a clownish parody of aphantasic cope
>>16848424>This pic alone provesPeak mental retardation. Not reading anything else from you
>>16848686>aphantasic immediately loses it with ragelel
I'm 5th on the graph when it comes to apples, yet when I think of OP, I have vivid imagery of a pale, hunchback manlet who loves deepthroating BBC, making this post with bloodshot eyes, full of rage, how can this be explained?
>>16848449this retarded nigger just owned himself
Not only would this imply that worldwide iq disparities are largely non-genetic, but also that black women are the primary cause of americas black-white iq gap; Mixed kids raised by them alone don't even experience iq gains at all compared to the current black average.
>>16847419Blacks have significantly higher amounts of lead in their blood, which is known to decrease cognitively ability. The mullatos being born to white mothers could've saved them from early exposure.
>>16847464You're right, those are all completely fair criticisms. I still do believe that non-genetic factors are significant contributors to IQ differences worldwide, though I'll consider your words upon viewing anything interesting surrounding the topic. Thank you for your time and participation in my thread!
>>16845469>IQ is education.>Not only would this imply that worldwide iq disparities are largely non-genetic>White mothers produce children with higher IQ than black mothers even in the best conditions Hmmm....
can any of you find good data on differential outcomes for mixed race pregnancies such as stillbirth rates?
>>16845469this is fake data the g is probably 105 at most not FSIQ lmao
