That last part is the most likely to be true as in "intended"
It's an 'elliptic' effect:
You put yourself in one focal point and say something
The sound waves will leave you circularly enough that they will reform in a good percentage of the original output at the other focal point, which is the spot you mention
I don't have anything against vegans or even the second law of thermodynamics but I have with your argument.
According to the same law you state, why don't you just eat dirt and glare at the sun ?
The fact that some energy was necessarily lost in the first process (grain->chicken) says nothing about wether you'll get more energy from one source or another.
How much energy are you able to take from grain ?
How much are you able to take from chicken meat ?
How much energy will require your kid to process grain into flesh ?
Meat into flesh ?
Of course your parent falls for the same reason, but it wasn't bringing in thermodynamics...
the US now knows who its real allies are (eg they used to count France as an ally)
I'm sorry to have to point to you that ally does not imply complice
Appart from this, I agree with (most of) your argument.
Well I still have to see the exact math that shows this, because as an argument, it doesn't hold anything and is very easy to coutner-argument:
First, the time dilation, is a ratio of the different time-passing rates. at a given velocity, the time delta among the two points will increase over time, which has no connection at all with the accelerations:
I mean that, you will take the same "time" or amount of energy to get from remative speed zero to relative speed v and back. but the paradoxical time delta will be a function of how long you kept running at this fixed speed, so that would be my first problem with this paradox "workaround"
But there is even easier: why don't you make points A and B run symetricaly, under an agreed acceleration-speed-acceleration-speed-acceleration scenario based on their own clocks ?
So you have A and B getting away of each others, thus both oberving slowering clocks of "the other guy", getting back and looking at each other.
That's probably not any more of a paradox than before, but it gets rid of the "this one is the guy that does experiment time slowering" which disturbs me.
At any point/event, you just can't know what happened to a point before in its life.. the speed relative to you is "now" and this is what counts, or mechanics would need terrible rewriting.
If someone has the maths that explains better about this twin paradoxes I'd be very interested in seeing it (or a good explanation of it, (that is, taking my trouble with the last explanation in account) since the maths are likely over me)
Hi,
Sorry for the offtopicc, but all seems quiet and since YAAP and seem to know about the stuff I thought I'd just ask:)
I am wondering if, today, we have some real "expectations" about the universe course from big bang (if big bang there was) to now and if yes, if we have commonly believed aswers (or prefered models about this) about the following assumptions that I make myself when trying to imagine the whole picture:
- The universe is roughly a 4D sphere, and we belong to its boundary (or the universe *is* this boundary however one wants to view it)
- At big bang event, this sphere radius was nearing zero and is since then expanding
- This expansion implies an expansion of the surface which is the "texture of the universe", it's not (not only) the universe elements that fly
appart (matter and light) but there is more and more space to be moving around.
- There can be thus combined expansions:
we can see matter moving away for whichever reason (forces, initial velocity etc.), but "space" itself while expanding, can move its population around with its expansion. (this latter movement being not subject to physical limitations like speed of light I suppose)
- However, since I think that we believe that matter is being moved by this space expansion, and since we can still see "things" around us, I suppose this expansion rate is well under lightspeed (at least today, I wonder if we think this speed has been varying since the beginning)
So, if all of this makes sense, my idea, and main question is this:
at one point, we could have had an universe large and old enough to see stars and galaxies forming, yet (maybe) small enough to be fully explorable in
a fraction of the time given from them until now.
(I mean that, at this time we could have started exploring the universe in a straight line and come back (since it's spherical) before (or at most until) today (travelling at lightspeed).
Then, a star (or something brighter, like a group of galaxies) would send its light in a spherical way fast enough to reach the "Universe equator" and start contracting back to until reaching the oposite pole of the universe and from there expand back again (even self interfering on a surface which would be defined as a matter of the lifetime of said light source and the expansion speed of the universe).
Is that correct ? if not why not ?
If yes, couldn't be today witnessing such things like mirror effects ? I'm asking this because if indeed we believe having covered 95% of the whole universe and if those conditions are plausible, then maybe we can see "mirror effects".
The mirror effects would be of different natures according to several considerations:
We should see the mirror effect of lightsources that "were coming from some point at some time, and which appear from the oposite direction in the exact same (inversed) way at a precise later time.
Those Timings and directions being influenced by our observer's relative position to an original source and "where was 'its' equator" ('its' because we all have one) then and now.
Now, I am realy wondering how we could even tell an original from its mirror...
and there are also two kind of incoming lights which must be somthing specal to see: expanding light versus contracting light. I suspect seeing contracting light coming to us (if we are on the other side of this particular source equator at the time we received its light) the we must be "feeling" it comes from another direction.
Just like mass can deflect light, exept this would be then be very exessive bending.
Now, if we are able to guess today's size of the universe, its expansion speed during the time and age of galaxies, couldn't a 95% map of the universe give us some definite clues about its very shape ?
That is, if we witness those mirror effects, or if we should but don't, or if in some region the mirrors are "too late" or "too scatered" etc. couldn't we infere that; for instance, the universe is in fact, say,
Why not opt for a non character oriented skill building system ?
Reward those players instead, not with real skill points that will overpower your character, but by getting "fame points".
The idea would be to choose when you play the game if you want to be some ongoing character (the traditional way with exp points etc.) or a "hero for hire"
if you play the game the standard way, you'll be hiring at a cost which will be duely retributed as fame points to the hero player.
When you play a hero for hire, you won't play many time the same character because it will either die, or you'll dump it because you want to try something else ("now that I'm famous enough I can play a troll, great !")
your fame builts according to how helpful you are to the other player which is the team leader
(leading npcs and heroes for hire)
there would be issues with this of course but I think it would be interesting for both the std player and the casual player who focuses on playing well his emporal characters.
first, the hero for hire is always involved in action, that's why he's hired, so no time is lost
wandering around. when you connect to the server you get to select from a list of possible characters and make alive a pool of supply and demand (your fame would let you higher priorities or would unlock races, things like that,
it would also allow you to slightly modify characteristics of your character in more or less dramatic ways according to the fame you got)
oh well, regardless, I'm sure there exist ways to offer value to both casual and hardcore gamers, you would just need to address different needs differently and combining them.
They are designed explicitly to cause injury? Funny, my gun doesn't seem to be designed to blow up in my face and fill my full of shrapnel. Oh that's right, it's a target rifle, it's designed for safe operation
I don't know how I have to point at you that the big idea is to cause injury to the *other* party, not yourself... where do you come from ??
The gun also has a safety, which is designed to reduce the chance of accidental firing. But a device designed to injury and kill people shoudln't have any kind of "safety" on it. That's just crazy.
Hmm yeah that's crazy !!!!
People should stop thinking about guns for self-protection and commiting crime. The world would be a much nicer place if we thought about how we can use things to enrich our lives.
So far guns have been quite succesfuly used for banks assaults, what would be your prefered way to enrich your life using a gun again ?
The next thing ?
I thought it was not only the standard but basically the only way to get sex for the average slashdotter
Are you announcing the next generation of slashdot geeks for whom even cybersex will be too much of a challenge ?
Hi,
Sorry I'm not a mathematician so what I'll say might sound stupid, but:
I think something must be missing from this proof.
I really don't see how this proves uncountability.
All I see is a proof of infinity, of which noone ever doubted.
Try this:
Imagine integers are countable. (not too hard:))
Write down a list of all of them, it will be much easier than a list of real number because there is a plain obvious one: 1, 2,...
Now that you somehow managed to end that list, apply the following process:
take the first number of your list (1) add it 1 and multiply it by ten.
Add it then the second item of your list, and multiply it by ten.
once the process is over, you end up with a number that can't possibly belong to your original list, since it differs from any of them.
Of course, we could make the process even simpler, but I just make it "closer" to the proposed one with real numbers.
I understand my proof is dumb, and it only proves I could not make a list of integers since there is an (coutable) infinity of them.
That was more easily showed with adding one to the last of the list, but it wouldn't show where is my problem with your own uncountability for real numbers proof.
The fact is, your new real number has a different representation than the first one because they differ from the first decimal value.
At this point, it could "still" be just like real number number "n" on your list. except that once you get to number "n" you also change the nth decimal value.
This can go on forever, it never shows that "at this point" it is impossible to find the number that you so far constructed further on the list, since there is no specified order in the list or rule (that I could see at least) that would prevent it.
So, to me, this is only a proof that real numbers between 0 and 1 are infinite.
But if I missed something I'll very gladly read your (or anyone's) correction, I find this very interesting indeed.
Yeah ? well I remember doing a whole multiverse expanding and collapsing simulation in a visual manner,
and it only took 3 seconds to run (up to the first syntax error)
I agree, it's amazing what you can do with two right hands
That's not the problem it's still an information propagation through the body that happens realy.
There is no such thing as a rigi body the way you see it (that is, all its part move together 'instantly')
A rigid body is made of atoms tied up together by binding forces.
you apply a force at the start of the queue to move the stick, and you accelerate (imagining the stick is a just a long chain of atoms) the first atom toward the second, etc.. it's a "pushing chain" that propagate at about the speed of light, but not faster, so i guess that would effectively define a theoretic maximum length for any 'solid body'.
Since beyond that length, atoms aren't 'suficently' moving together (there's too much of a delay to watch the global movement as a whole thing, and all elements aren't moving together at the same speed, whi is the requirement for it to be considered solid)
Anyway, you're out of luck with that stick.
Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor
on
Pure Math, Pure Joy
·
· Score: 1
I disagree with you on several levels:
First, your idea of "simpler" is very skewed, I don't think getting rid of obvious context is a simple step, and certainly not reasonable.
By obvious context I mean, the fact of writing a set of numbers and asking you to chose one of them naturaly makes you think of the elements as numbers, and thus to chose a "number-related" characteristic (like, say, oh.. arithmetical properties instead of "artistic" ones).
An other obvious context would be to show several drawings of tools, like a pen, a calculator, an eraser, and a hammer.
Since all those items are tools, one 'should' (my point of view, apprently not yours) consider their properties as tools and for instance discard the hammer as not an office tool.
I guess someone like you would say "the eraser is the only item here that doesn't contain metal, it's easier to assume this because I don't have to know what the tools are made for, but I can easily see that they all have some metal exept for the eraser"
That would be a mistake to me, but realy in this particular case, the mensa (pero bastante mensa hay que reconocerlo) answer would be:
"the calculator is to be discarded as it, as a drawing, is the only figure made of a group of all similar figures (a square containing squares) whereas all the other figures are made of different basic shapes.
Mensa take on its IQ test seem to be:
"Look how cool and elegant is my answer to this problem, it's somehow unexpected, yet correct and insightful, I am truly a genius"
This is a snobism test, not an intelligence test.
My other level of disagreement with you is with your Ockhams (or is that Occam ?? not sure) statement. Here is a question with multiple choice s for mensa members:
Occam's Razzor should be invoked to:
a) Chose a theory form a set of result compatible theories
b) Tell a correct answer from a set of different answers
c) Justify any fallacy as long as it makes you part of the club
Well, I find it sad that your answer was *b*, but I think it's pathetic that mensa oficial answer seems to be *c*
A few *conveignent adaptations* are allowed to make the character look better.
After all, before seeing how Spider-man does his trick, it would have felt just as weird to imagine the same scene:
"Oh no ! the evil fly-goblins have attacked me! Save me, Spider-man, with that ultra-sticky-web-coming-out-of-your-ass attack !
Not *any*
If the gravity field is null, you're out of luck with that balance.
Likewise, if you're gravity field isn't "constant enough" (spatialy), the comparison won't work either
Slashdot Mirror
That last part is the most likely to be true as in "intended"
It's an 'elliptic' effect:
You put yourself in one focal point and say something
The sound waves will leave you circularly enough that they will reform in a good percentage of the original output at the other focal point, which is the spot you mention
I don't have anything against vegans or even the second law of thermodynamics but I have with your argument.
According to the same law you state, why don't you just eat dirt and glare at the sun ?
The fact that some energy was necessarily lost in the first process (grain->chicken) says nothing about wether you'll get more energy from one source or another.
How much energy are you able to take from grain ?
How much are you able to take from chicken meat ?
How much energy will require your kid to process grain into flesh ?
Meat into flesh ?
Of course your parent falls for the same reason, but it wasn't bringing in thermodynamics...
you mean dual, :)
if you have duel video cards/CPUS, it's like saying your car has 200 hp, but 100 of them are running backward
Those are the Bernouilli equations,
Euler ones do deal with compressibility of fluids
the US now knows who its real allies are (eg they used to count France as an ally)
I'm sorry to have to point to you that ally does not imply complice
Appart from this, I agree with (most of) your argument.
The energy conservaion "law" is however a theorem, proven within the underlying theories
Well I still have to see the exact math that shows this, because as an argument, it doesn't hold anything and is very easy to coutner-argument:n scenario based on their own clocks ?
First, the time dilation, is a ratio of the different time-passing rates. at a given velocity, the time delta among the two points will increase over time, which has no connection at all with the accelerations:
I mean that, you will take the same "time" or amount of energy to get from remative speed zero to relative speed v and back. but the paradoxical time delta will be a function of how long you kept running at this fixed speed, so that would be my first problem with this paradox "workaround"
But there is even easier: why don't you make points A and B run symetricaly, under an agreed acceleration-speed-acceleration-speed-acceleratio
So you have A and B getting away of each others, thus both oberving slowering clocks of "the other guy", getting back and looking at each other.
That's probably not any more of a paradox than before, but it gets rid of the "this one is the guy that does experiment time slowering" which disturbs me.
At any point/event, you just can't know what happened to a point before in its life.. the speed relative to you is "now" and this is what counts, or mechanics would need terrible rewriting.
If someone has the maths that explains better about this twin paradoxes I'd be very interested in seeing it (or a good explanation of it, (that is, taking my trouble with the last explanation in account) since the maths are likely over me)
That's certainly not vrai du tout !
Hi, :)
Sorry for the offtopicc, but all seems quiet and since YAAP and seem to know about the stuff I thought I'd just ask
I am wondering if, today, we have some real "expectations" about the universe course from big bang (if big bang there was) to now and if yes, if we have commonly believed aswers (or prefered models about this) about the following assumptions that I make myself when trying to imagine the whole picture:
- The universe is roughly a 4D sphere, and we belong to its boundary (or the universe *is* this boundary however one wants to view it)
- At big bang event, this sphere radius was nearing zero and is since then expanding
- This expansion implies an expansion of the surface which is the "texture of the universe", it's not (not only) the universe elements that fly appart (matter and light) but there is more and more space to be moving around.
- There can be thus combined expansions:
we can see matter moving away for whichever reason (forces, initial velocity etc.), but "space" itself while expanding, can move its population around with its expansion. (this latter movement being not subject to physical limitations like speed of light I suppose)
- However, since I think that we believe that matter is being moved by this space expansion, and since we can still see "things" around us, I suppose this expansion rate is well under lightspeed (at least today, I wonder if we think this speed has been varying since the beginning)
So, if all of this makes sense, my idea, and main question is this:
at one point, we could have had an universe large and old enough to see stars and galaxies forming, yet (maybe) small enough to be fully explorable in a fraction of the time given from them until now.
(I mean that, at this time we could have started exploring the universe in a straight line and come back (since it's spherical) before (or at most until) today (travelling at lightspeed).
Then, a star (or something brighter, like a group of galaxies) would send its light in a spherical way fast enough to reach the "Universe equator" and start contracting back to until reaching the oposite pole of the universe and from there expand back again (even self interfering on a surface which would be defined as a matter of the lifetime of said light source and the expansion speed of the universe).
Is that correct ? if not why not ?
If yes, couldn't be today witnessing such things like mirror effects ?
I'm asking this because if indeed we believe having covered 95% of the whole universe and if those conditions are plausible, then maybe we can see "mirror effects". The mirror effects would be of different natures according to several considerations:
We should see the mirror effect of lightsources that "were coming from some point at some time, and which appear from the oposite direction in the exact same (inversed) way at a precise later time. Those Timings and directions being influenced by our observer's relative position to an original source and "where was 'its' equator" ('its' because we all have one) then and now.
Now, I am realy wondering how we could even tell an original from its mirror...
and there are also two kind of incoming lights which must be somthing specal to see: expanding light versus contracting light. I suspect seeing contracting light coming to us (if we are on the other side of this particular source equator at the time we received its light) the we must be "feeling" it comes from another direction.
Just like mass can deflect light, exept this would be then be very exessive bending.
Now, if we are able to guess today's size of the universe, its expansion speed during the time and age of galaxies, couldn't a 95% map of the universe give us some definite clues about its very shape ?
That is, if we witness those mirror effects, or if we should but don't, or if in some region the mirrors are "too late" or "too scatered" etc. couldn't we infere that; for instance, the universe is in fact, say,
An inside joke ?
don't be rediculous !
This is absurd, who would use a such a useless clock ?
didn't you see the batteries only last 45 minutes ?
Why not opt for a non character oriented skill building system ?
Reward those players instead, not with real skill points that will overpower your character, but by getting "fame points".
The idea would be to choose when you play the game if you want to be some ongoing character (the traditional way with exp points etc.) or a "hero for hire"
if you play the game the standard way, you'll be hiring at a cost which will be duely retributed as fame points to the hero player.
When you play a hero for hire, you won't play many time the same character because it will either die, or you'll dump it because you want to try something else ("now that I'm famous enough I can play a troll, great !")
your fame builts according to how helpful you are to the other player which is the team leader (leading npcs and heroes for hire)
there would be issues with this of course but I think it would be interesting for both the std player and the casual player who focuses on playing well his emporal characters. first, the hero for hire is always involved in action, that's why he's hired, so no time is lost wandering around. when you connect to the server you get to select from a list of possible characters and make alive a pool of supply and demand (your fame would let you higher priorities or would unlock races, things like that, it would also allow you to slightly modify characteristics of your character in more or less dramatic ways according to the fame you got)
oh well, regardless, I'm sure there exist ways to offer value to both casual and hardcore gamers, you would just need to address different needs differently and combining them.
They are designed explicitly to cause injury? Funny, my gun doesn't seem to be designed to blow up in my face and fill my full of shrapnel. Oh that's right, it's a target rifle, it's designed for safe operation
I don't know how I have to point at you that the big idea is to cause injury to the *other* party, not yourself... where do you come from ??
The gun also has a safety, which is designed to reduce the chance of accidental firing. But a device designed to injury and kill people shoudln't have any kind of "safety" on it. That's just crazy.
Hmm yeah that's crazy !!!!
People should stop thinking about guns for self-protection and commiting crime. The world would be a much nicer place if we thought about how we can use things to enrich our lives.
So far guns have been quite succesfuly used for banks assaults, what would be your prefered way to enrich your life using a gun again ?
The next thing ?
I thought it was not only the standard but basically the only way to get sex for the average slashdotter
Are you announcing the next generation of slashdot geeks for whom even cybersex will be too much of a challenge ?
Yes but this idea Planck had back then is very outdated now
err...
Hi, :)) ...
Sorry I'm not a mathematician so what I'll say might sound stupid, but:
I think something must be missing from this proof.
I really don't see how this proves uncountability.
All I see is a proof of infinity, of which noone ever doubted.
Try this:
Imagine integers are countable. (not too hard
Write down a list of all of them, it will be much easier than a list of real number because there is a plain obvious one: 1, 2,
Now that you somehow managed to end that list, apply the following process:
take the first number of your list (1) add it 1 and multiply it by ten.
Add it then the second item of your list, and multiply it by ten.
once the process is over, you end up with a number that can't possibly belong to your original list, since it differs from any of them.
Of course, we could make the process even simpler, but I just make it "closer" to the proposed one with real numbers.
I understand my proof is dumb, and it only proves I could not make a list of integers since there is an (coutable) infinity of them.
That was more easily showed with adding one to the last of the list, but it wouldn't show where is my problem with your own uncountability for real numbers proof.
The fact is, your new real number has a different representation than the first one because they differ from the first decimal value.
At this point, it could "still" be just like real number number "n" on your list. except that once you get to number "n" you also change the nth decimal value.
This can go on forever, it never shows that "at this point" it is impossible to find the number that you so far constructed further on the list, since there is no specified order in the list or rule (that I could see at least) that would prevent it.
So, to me, this is only a proof that real numbers between 0 and 1 are infinite.
But if I missed something I'll very gladly read your (or anyone's) correction, I find this very interesting indeed.
2+2+7 does not count
it would have to be 3+3+5
What do you mean ? I'm loost...
Yeah ?
well I remember doing a whole multiverse expanding and collapsing simulation in a visual manner,
and it only took 3 seconds to run (up to the first syntax error)
I agree, it's amazing what you can do with two right hands
No, outside it's all quiet,
but I'm worried about the dwarf who lives inside and is supposed to shut the lights off...
I order you to drink a beer !
right now
don't mention it...
That's not the problem it's still an information propagation through the body that happens realy.
There is no such thing as a rigi body the way you see it (that is, all its part move together 'instantly')
A rigid body is made of atoms tied up together by binding forces.
you apply a force at the start of the queue to move the stick, and you accelerate (imagining the stick is a just a long chain of atoms) the first atom toward the second, etc.. it's a "pushing chain" that propagate at about the speed of light, but not faster, so i guess that would effectively define a theoretic maximum length for any 'solid body'.
Since beyond that length, atoms aren't 'suficently' moving together (there's too much of a delay to watch the global movement as a whole thing, and all elements aren't moving together at the same speed, whi is the requirement for it to be considered solid)
Anyway, you're out of luck with that stick.
I disagree with you on several levels:
First, your idea of "simpler" is very skewed, I don't think getting rid of obvious context is a simple step, and certainly not reasonable.
By obvious context I mean, the fact of writing a set of numbers and asking you to chose one of them naturaly makes you think of the elements as numbers, and thus to chose a "number-related" characteristic (like, say, oh.. arithmetical properties instead of "artistic" ones).
An other obvious context would be to show several drawings of tools, like a pen, a calculator, an eraser, and a hammer.
Since all those items are tools, one 'should' (my point of view, apprently not yours) consider their properties as tools and for instance discard the hammer as not an office tool.
I guess someone like you would say "the eraser is the only item here that doesn't contain metal, it's easier to assume this because I don't have to know what the tools are made for, but I can easily see that they all have some metal exept for the eraser"
That would be a mistake to me, but realy in this particular case, the mensa (pero bastante mensa hay que reconocerlo) answer would be: "the calculator is to be discarded as it, as a drawing, is the only figure made of a group of all similar figures (a square containing squares) whereas all the other figures are made of different basic shapes.
Mensa take on its IQ test seem to be:
"Look how cool and elegant is my answer to this problem, it's somehow unexpected, yet correct and insightful, I am truly a genius"
This is a snobism test, not an intelligence test.
My other level of disagreement with you is with your Ockhams (or is that Occam ?? not sure) statement. Here is a question with multiple choice s for mensa members:
Occam's Razzor should be invoked to:
a) Chose a theory form a set of result compatible theories
b) Tell a correct answer from a set of different answers
c) Justify any fallacy as long as it makes you part of the club
Well, I find it sad that your answer was *b*, but I think it's pathetic that mensa oficial answer seems to be *c*
A few *conveignent adaptations* are allowed to make the character look better.
After all, before seeing how Spider-man does his trick, it would have felt just as weird to imagine the same scene:
"Oh no ! the evil fly-goblins have attacked me! Save me, Spider-man, with that ultra-sticky-web-coming-out-of-your-ass attack !
Not *any*
If the gravity field is null, you're out of luck with that balance.
Likewise, if you're gravity field isn't "constant enough" (spatialy), the comparison won't work either