Well, I didn't deny to you the use of language to explain something, our disagreement here is on the "level" of the required language.
Your point (valid to a certain extent, just as mine) is that to understand the problem, they guy should already understand a bunch of prerequisites.
My point is, this isn't true (at least no in this case), and many time, an explanation of the problem can be given that is easier to understand than the very concepts used to describe it, of course, it makes it less obvious to grasp then why it is so hard to solve, or why it is so important, but you can certainly let they guy with a much better idea of what the problem is than by telling him "if you don't know what it means, there is no point in explaining you, you won't understand".
Just look at other threads, many very simple explanations were given of what the problem is about by people who do understand it well.
Then you can claim it's overly simplified and mathematicaly not precise enough, (oh no, it's an open-faced logical fallacy *g*) but then, you clearly misunderstood the guy's question, and maybe there is no point in trying to explain it to you if you couldn't get it in the first place ?
You are confusing knowledge and understanding capability, or intelligence some would call.
There are people who have been in contact with such terms but don't remember exactly what is homeotopic (homeomorphic ? no.. the other thing.. oh yeah)
Other people just aren't yet here but are perfectly capable of understanding what this is about if well explained.
The minimum amount of familiarity with the relevant field you are talking about is indeed welcome, but more to understand the potentialy deep implications of the problem than to understand what is the problem per se.
You know, if you realy don't see how to explain it to someone who doesn't already understand it, it's probably because you don't understand it very well yourself.
What your parent talks about is cavitation, the vibration you talk about is also a problem, but it has nothing to do with cavitation.
What your parent reffered to was the formation of very tiny bubbles that quickly collapse and release microjets which are very damaging to surrounding surfaces.
Those tiny bubles also have the (generaly) unwanted property of always orienting themselves so as to send the microjet against the surface of contact, thus making the problem more severe and less unlikely to happen that it might sound in a first thought.
Those nasty microjets can do a lot of damage and are the reason why stainless steel helices of boats still get corroded.
In the case of the proposed cooling system,
the surface of the channels might be attacked by the released microjets until perforation, since it is so thin.
That's because you want all the forces to radiate sphericaly, taking full advantage of the available 4 (or more) dimensions.
Since in such worlds completely different laws of physics are to be assumed, I realy don't see why the "4d version" of say, electric force, should be a 4-spherish field..
It could be much weirder, I never saw or heard the domonstration you talk about, and it sounds very interesting, but I'm pretty sure it makes this kind of assumption: in a 4d world, forces behave 4-sphericaly (or something like that, please pardon my unknowlegeable language)
One of the simplest 4d universe I can imagine, is one with the very same 3d laws, restricted to hyperplanes. Say you have a hyperplane with particles, forces, etc, behaving the very same way we know they do, then, since all acting vectors of the hyperplane are contained in itself, it is a "working subspace" and as far as contained beings are concenred, it works pretty well.
The only way to visit the rest of the universe (to get out of the containing sheet) is to collide (or interract in some way) with a non parallel sheet.. why couldn't that happen, and why would that be unstable ?
Anyway, the first thing to do is to give a suitable definition of living system, I suspect Alsee, as I would, thinks of a much broader sense of living system that you do (not that you are incorrect in doing so, but then disagreements necesarily arise and nobody is realy wrong).
To the point, I realy don't think it's reasonable to rule out what we already know possible in 3d to higher dimensions, since in higher dimensions a 3d subspace is always possible, and auto-growing known forces/phenomenons to a plausible 4d behavior is as meaningless as assuming such a world exists in the fisrt place.
In any case, you might want to restrict the possibilities to lesser dimensions, and even there I wouldn't consider wave packets coming back and forth, interchanging energies or whatever, on a single line as a "dead" 1d system..
Unfortunately, not everything in math can be a theorem.
We know since Gödel that some truthes are just "truthes", like mere accidents, which means, they cannot be proven with our set of axioms.
For this precise reason, the mathematics universe
is starting to look a lot more like the physicis universe, in that laws might be an option to consider.
Say we discover an appearant pattern in prime numbers distribution. Maybe this pattern, experimentaly found has no way to be proven.
The real bad news is, if it is one of those unprovable nightmares, we won't know it until the end of times:) there is no way to be sure.
Then maybe if strong 'experimental' evidence is given, maybe this conjecture can slowly become a law, as it works in physics, allowing a (new ?) branch of experimental mathematics to progress faster based on experimental evidence.
Uh ? this guy was very bad, everytime I hear him saying "Okay" it reminds me of Abe's Odissey.
Oh well, now that he has this back problem, maybe he'll get an oscar for the best mudukon interpretation....
I think he meant for a case where the
needed space is likely to double, or almost double (or more).
Then, everytime you get to the end of the array, you create a new array, with say just one (or five in his example) more cell.
you then copy all the elements from the first array to the next array. that's O(n) the first time, but if your array needs to double (or probably does). you'll do that n (or n/5) times.
thus O(n^2).
Well I think that's what he meant anyway...
This isn't the definition of the dot product.
It just happens to be computable this way when
A and B are expressed in an orthonormal basis.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but since you introduced the (now corrected) term "dot product" to "explain" orthogonality, you have to admit that
sum(an,bn) won't make anybody feel better about orthogonality if they didn't know what it was in the first place.
The dot product is the product of the norms, times the cosine of the angle.
it is as ficticious as the "force" that pulls you back in your car when you accelerates.
the coriolis effect is just a noticeable acceleration (one of them) on a rotating frame of reference, which is thus not inertial anymore, although you'd believe it is. the acceleration you then observe (relative to your moving frame) is best separated/analyzed in spherical coorinates. one of the elements you get is known as the coriolis "effect".
You could make a great learning tool / dictionary
for chinese, japanese... languages too.
For a foreigner in china trying to read something even simple written in chinese is a headache unless well trained to use chinese dictionaries, and then when skilled enough it's probably not so useful anymore.
But anyway it would absolutely rock as a learning tool, as it could even check the stroke order when you try to draw a symbol, say written in pinyin with its meaning so there's no confusion (or inside a sentence or whatever)
*All* your generalisation are belong to /bin/false
on
Go Go Gadget Minisaw
·
· Score: 1
Is this really how this works ?
I'm suprised by the fact they mention audio spotlight as competition, also Pompei (the guy from audiospotlight) telling the other guy is a thief...
I've been looking at the audio-spotlight solution,
and it doesn't work like that.
It only uses "one" ultrasound source and doesn't recreate the original sound by mixing the 2 ultrasonic waves.
I also have a hard time to imagine that's what they do themselves in this article since there is only one speaker.
How do you "cross" the two beams ?
how do you select the distance where you want them to be mixed.
If it did work like that, it would effectively produce sound "at one point" but you would need two speakers. also, it wouldn't work so well for a nightclub. (how would it ?)
I suppose his invention works just like the pompei's one, and that it doesn't produce sound at a specific point, but rather a beam.
(hence "spotlight like sound")
In pompei's case, you only ned one ultrasonic source.
Air is a non linear propagation medium, that is, it affects high frequencies more than it affects low ones.
Pompei modelled air response and basically process incoming sound with an "inverse" filter.
sounds travels in the air in an ultrasonic form and is progressively deformed by air back into an audible stream, but a much more narrow one.
Air acts like a low pass fiter and thus progresively (over a few cms) makes the ultrasonic encoded stream into the original sound, but this one travels in air quite straigthly instead of spreading almost sphericaly like "normal" sound does.
I think this article is nothing but undocumented hype.
I also have heard about militar applications, but they were not interested in silly weapons (really, a gun is much better) but rather in efficient, directed comunication from one person to another. also if anyone is in between, he will hear everything as well.
All other forces possibly, but gravity isn't a force so analogy reasoning (as always btw) is flawed. Unless of course, gravity finaly *is* a force after all, but even then it doesn't have to be coupled with any other just because it sounds right (as much as I'd like it to)
They already do this in Mexico (superimposed ads).at least I think so... maybe I just witnessed a proof of concept... whatever..
I really generally don't watch TV-Azteca, nor televisa since they suck way beyond imagination but they were showing Blade Runner and I wanted my wife to see it (even with awful dubbing and looooooooots of ads)(I finally found it on vhs with subtitles now)
But then they superimposed an add for tequila reposado hmm herradura I think it was.. don't remember very well... I switched channel instantly and never ever once put it back. This was one or two years ago..
...and their wild calculations..*sigh*
Only demo coders have as much spare time and willingness to let people know about it...
Well at least demo coders end up with useful things for game programming:)
Yeah yeah those physicists are entertaining too.. what was the last great thing to discuss ?
Ah yes do schroedinger's farts smell if nobody hears them, or something like that...
I get tired really quickly of having my ass fragged on the net by some 14 year-old who runs circles around me
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings... :) just kidding I never play online because dial-up sucks, but oh do we have all fun playing lan parties for hours !
Of course, I end up fragging most of my friends so I must be biased, but I remember having a lot of fun being fragged too:)
Anyway, what I really liked about UT was the ease of mod creations, I wrote a sumo-deathmatch game type with its mutators in which all your weapons are just momentum-effective (no damage) when you make someone fall (DM-Morpheus is great here), you score a frag. Also a new weapon, the inflator can be used to inflate your target like a balloon and increase your momentum transfer when you shoot him with anything else. (I know it's not good physics, but you have to see an inflated warcow being shot by 5 rockets or by the redeemer on low-grav settings:):))
*sigh* gotta go now.. have to frag something *now*:)
Slashdot Mirror
Actualy, most people dealing with klein bottles manage with 2 dimensions...
Show me the monney
But according to others experts, the answer could very well be yes and no...
Well, I didn't deny to you the use of language to explain something, our disagreement here is on the "level" of the required language.
Your point (valid to a certain extent, just as mine) is that to understand the problem, they guy should already understand a bunch of prerequisites.
My point is, this isn't true (at least no in this case), and many time, an explanation of the problem can be given that is easier to understand than the very concepts used to describe it, of course, it makes it less obvious to grasp then why it is so hard to solve, or why it is so important, but you can certainly let they guy with a much better idea of what the problem is than by telling him "if you don't know what it means, there is no point in explaining you, you won't understand".
Just look at other threads, many very simple explanations were given of what the problem is about by people who do understand it well.
Then you can claim it's overly simplified and mathematicaly not precise enough, (oh no, it's an open-faced logical fallacy *g*) but then, you clearly misunderstood the guy's question, and maybe there is no point in trying to explain it to you if you couldn't get it in the first place ?
You are confusing knowledge and understanding capability, or intelligence some would call.
There are people who have been in contact with such terms but don't remember exactly what is homeotopic (homeomorphic ? no.. the other thing.. oh yeah)
Other people just aren't yet here but are perfectly capable of understanding what this is about if well explained.
The minimum amount of familiarity with the relevant field you are talking about is indeed welcome, but more to understand the potentialy deep implications of the problem than to understand what is the problem per se.
You know, if you realy don't see how to explain it to someone who doesn't already understand it, it's probably because you don't understand it very well yourself.
What your parent talks about is cavitation, the vibration you talk about is also a problem, but it has nothing to do with cavitation.
What your parent reffered to was the formation of very tiny bubbles that quickly collapse and release microjets which are very damaging to surrounding surfaces.
Those tiny bubles also have the (generaly) unwanted property of always orienting themselves so as to send the microjet against the surface of contact, thus making the problem more severe and less unlikely to happen that it might sound in a first thought.
Those nasty microjets can do a lot of damage and are the reason why stainless steel helices of boats still get corroded.
In the case of the proposed cooling system, the surface of the channels might be attacked by the released microjets until perforation, since it is so thin.
That's because you want all the forces to radiate sphericaly, taking full advantage of the available 4 (or more) dimensions.
Since in such worlds completely different laws of physics are to be assumed, I realy don't see why the "4d version" of say, electric force, should be a 4-spherish field..
It could be much weirder, I never saw or heard the domonstration you talk about, and it sounds very interesting, but I'm pretty sure it makes this kind of assumption: in a 4d world, forces behave 4-sphericaly (or something like that, please pardon my unknowlegeable language)
One of the simplest 4d universe I can imagine, is one with the very same 3d laws, restricted to hyperplanes. Say you have a hyperplane with particles, forces, etc, behaving the very same way we know they do, then, since all acting vectors of the hyperplane are contained in itself, it is a "working subspace" and as far as contained beings are concenred, it works pretty well.
The only way to visit the rest of the universe (to get out of the containing sheet) is to collide (or interract in some way) with a non parallel sheet.. why couldn't that happen, and why would that be unstable ?
Anyway, the first thing to do is to give a suitable definition of living system, I suspect Alsee, as I would, thinks of a much broader sense of living system that you do (not that you are incorrect in doing so, but then disagreements necesarily arise and nobody is realy wrong).
To the point, I realy don't think it's reasonable to rule out what we already know possible in 3d to higher dimensions, since in higher dimensions a 3d subspace is always possible, and auto-growing known forces/phenomenons to a plausible 4d behavior is as meaningless as assuming such a world exists in the fisrt place.
In any case, you might want to restrict the possibilities to lesser dimensions, and even there I wouldn't consider wave packets coming back and forth, interchanging energies or whatever, on a single line as a "dead" 1d system..
Unfortunately, not everything in math can be a theorem. :) there is no way to be sure.
We know since Gödel that some truthes are just "truthes", like mere accidents, which means, they cannot be proven with our set of axioms.
For this precise reason, the mathematics universe is starting to look a lot more like the physicis universe, in that laws might be an option to consider.
Say we discover an appearant pattern in prime numbers distribution. Maybe this pattern, experimentaly found has no way to be proven.
The real bad news is, if it is one of those unprovable nightmares, we won't know it until the end of times
Then maybe if strong 'experimental' evidence is given, maybe this conjecture can slowly become a law, as it works in physics, allowing a (new ?) branch of experimental mathematics to progress faster based on experimental evidence.
Uh ? this guy was very bad, everytime I hear him saying "Okay" it reminds me of Abe's Odissey.
Oh well, now that he has this back problem, maybe he'll get an oscar for the best mudukon interpretation....
I think he meant for a case where the needed space is likely to double, or almost double (or more).
Then, everytime you get to the end of the array, you create a new array, with say just one (or five in his example) more cell.
you then copy all the elements from the first array to the next array. that's O(n) the first time, but if your array needs to double (or probably does). you'll do that n (or n/5) times. thus O(n^2).
Well I think that's what he meant anyway...
fropm now on, french armpits will be known as liberty armpits
well, it's a shorthand for latin actualy, :)
but yeah
This isn't the definition of the dot product.
It just happens to be computable this way when A and B are expressed in an orthonormal basis.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but since you introduced the (now corrected) term "dot product" to "explain" orthogonality, you have to admit that sum(an,bn) won't make anybody feel better about orthogonality if they didn't know what it was in the first place.
The dot product is the product of the norms, times the cosine of the angle.
it is as ficticious as the "force" that pulls you back in your car when you accelerates. the coriolis effect is just a noticeable acceleration (one of them) on a rotating frame of reference, which is thus not inertial anymore, although you'd believe it is. the acceleration you then observe (relative to your moving frame) is best separated/analyzed in spherical coorinates. one of the elements you get is known as the coriolis "effect".
It was probably drugware
You could make a great learning tool / dictionary for chinese, japanese... languages too.
For a foreigner in china trying to read something even simple written in chinese is a headache unless well trained to use chinese dictionaries, and then when skilled enough it's probably not so useful anymore.
But anyway it would absolutely rock as a learning tool, as it could even check the stroke order when you try to draw a symbol, say written in pinyin with its meaning so there's no confusion (or inside a sentence or whatever)
nichtlustig
Humour français (sur les français)
Oh well I'm sure you knew that all generalisations are wrong...
Is this really how this works ? I'm suprised by the fact they mention audio spotlight as competition, also Pompei (the guy from audiospotlight) telling the other guy is a thief... I've been looking at the audio-spotlight solution, and it doesn't work like that. It only uses "one" ultrasound source and doesn't recreate the original sound by mixing the 2 ultrasonic waves. I also have a hard time to imagine that's what they do themselves in this article since there is only one speaker. How do you "cross" the two beams ? how do you select the distance where you want them to be mixed. If it did work like that, it would effectively produce sound "at one point" but you would need two speakers. also, it wouldn't work so well for a nightclub. (how would it ?) I suppose his invention works just like the pompei's one, and that it doesn't produce sound at a specific point, but rather a beam. (hence "spotlight like sound") In pompei's case, you only ned one ultrasonic source. Air is a non linear propagation medium, that is, it affects high frequencies more than it affects low ones. Pompei modelled air response and basically process incoming sound with an "inverse" filter. sounds travels in the air in an ultrasonic form and is progressively deformed by air back into an audible stream, but a much more narrow one. Air acts like a low pass fiter and thus progresively (over a few cms) makes the ultrasonic encoded stream into the original sound, but this one travels in air quite straigthly instead of spreading almost sphericaly like "normal" sound does. I think this article is nothing but undocumented hype. I also have heard about militar applications, but they were not interested in silly weapons (really, a gun is much better) but rather in efficient, directed comunication from one person to another. also if anyone is in between, he will hear everything as well.
Or better, yet artificial life for the average slashdotter
All other forces possibly, but gravity isn't a force so analogy reasoning (as always btw) is flawed.
Unless of course, gravity finaly *is* a force after all, but even then it doesn't have to be coupled with any other just because it sounds right (as much as I'd like it to)
They already do this in Mexico (superimposed ads).at least I think so... maybe I just witnessed a proof of concept... whatever..
I really generally don't watch TV-Azteca, nor televisa since they suck way beyond imagination but they were showing Blade Runner and I wanted my wife to see it (even with awful dubbing and looooooooots of ads)(I finally found it on vhs with subtitles now)
But then they superimposed an add for tequila reposado hmm herradura I think it was.. don't remember very well... I switched channel instantly and never ever once put it back. This was one or two years ago..
...and their wild calculations..*sigh* :)
Only demo coders have as much spare time and willingness to let people know about it...
Well at least demo coders end up with useful things for game programming
Yeah yeah those physicists are entertaining too.. what was the last great thing to discuss ?
Ah yes do schroedinger's farts smell if nobody hears them, or something like that...
What horny troopers on Mars ??
damn !
I get tired really quickly of having my ass fragged on the net by some 14 year-old who runs circles around me
:) just kidding I never play online because dial-up sucks, but oh do we have all fun playing lan parties for hours ! :)
Anyway, what I really liked about UT was the ease of mod creations, I wrote a sumo-deathmatch game type with its mutators in which all your weapons are just momentum-effective (no damage) when you make someone fall (DM-Morpheus is great here), you score a frag. Also a new weapon, the inflator can be used to inflate your target like a balloon and increase your momentum transfer when you shoot him with anything else. (I know it's not good physics, but you have to see an inflated warcow being shot by 5 rockets or by the redeemer on low-grav settings :) :)) :)
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings...
Of course, I end up fragging most of my friends so I must be biased, but I remember having a lot of fun being fragged too
*sigh* gotta go now.. have to frag something *now*
like this ?
Mozilla_Release_version(t)=1.0-exp(-t*num_dev)