Re:That's why mathematicians != computer scientist
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
Just read the F'in paper -- Then comment intelligently math-boy. What a cop-out.
The person stated that they were a CS grad student and not a mathematician. And you are insulting them for not commenting intelligently?
Stephen Fear's High Fidelity is as good a movie as the l995 Nick Hornsby novel on which it is based.
I didn't think the novel was a very good movie.
Re:Two signs that this is April's fool...
on
Two By Katz
·
· Score: 2
2) The word geek doesn't translate into any of the following languages: French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish.
The second is interesting as the word geek comes from the Low German word "gek" meaning fool. Interesting, no? No. Anyways, I must get back to biting the heads off live chickens now.
Awww, only you're one of those crackpots who actually believes in free will.
The problem has nothing to do with free will(well, something to do with it). The problem has to do with the complete impossibility of making long range predictions of the kind made in that book. I know it was written before "chaos theory" became a buzz word but it doesn't take a genius to see the problems here.
However.... If you pump out even more air...thus lowering the air pressure even more...this effect becomes much less...and the fins actually DO spin in the opposite direction.
This is exactly what I was saying. I was correct and correct. However, the force you would get from normal sunlight would be incredibly small. Probably on the order of 10^-8 newtons for one of those standard radiometers.
this is why you have these little gadgets with something that spins inside a glass bulb, but only when there is light.
They don't have mass. They have momentum. That's what causes the so called "radiation pressure". Also, that's not why radiometers spin. If the spinning of the radiometer were due to the transfer of momentum from photons, then it would actually spin in the opposite direction.
I'd be interested to see that proof, since a formula for calculating the nth digit of pi does exist.The only catch is, the formula calculates the nth digit of pi in hexadecimal.
If there really is a proof that it's impossible, then presumably that's for base 10 numbers? Do you have a reference?
Cantor's Continuum Hypothesis states that the "cardinality" (roughly count) of the real numbers is 2^(cardinality of integers). This is usually written using the Hebrew alpha, but I can't find this on my keyboard.
No no no no. This is a very common misunderstanding. Briefly, the cardinal numbers measure the size of sets, in that if two sets have the same size(what does this mean? well, we define it to mean that there's a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the sets) then the cardinality(the corresponding cardinal number) of the sets is equal. Aleph_0(0 is a subscript) is the cardinality of the natural numbers. It can be proved that this is the smallest infinite cardinal. It can also be proved that the cardinality of the reals is 2^Aleph_0 and that this is greater than(and not equal to) Aleph_0. Now, let Aleph_1 be the smallest cardinal greater than Aleph_0(i.e. the "size" of the smallest set that cannot be put in one-to-one correspondence with the naturals). The question is: what is Aleph_1? The Continuum Hypothesis states that Aleph_1 is the cardinality of the reals, i.e. there is no set bigger than the naturals and smaller than the reals. However, it has been shown that the Continuum Hypothesis cannot be proved or disproved within the standard axioms of set theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Just read the F'in paper -- Then comment intelligently math-boy. What a cop-out. The person stated that they were a CS grad student and not a mathematician. And you are insulting them for not commenting intelligently?
Stephen Fear's High Fidelity is as good a movie as the l995 Nick Hornsby novel on which it is based.
I didn't think the novel was a very good movie.
2) The word geek doesn't translate into any of the following languages: French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish.
The second is interesting as the word geek comes from the Low German word "gek" meaning fool. Interesting, no? No. Anyways, I must get back to biting the heads off live chickens now.
Where can I get a copy of whatever program generated this?
Awww, only you're one of those crackpots who actually believes in free will.
The problem has nothing to do with free will(well, something to do with it). The problem has to do with the complete impossibility of making long range predictions of the kind made in that book. I know it was written before "chaos theory" became a buzz word but it doesn't take a genius to see the problems here.
However....
If you pump out even more air...thus lowering the air pressure even more...this effect becomes much less...and the fins actually DO spin in the opposite direction.
This is exactly what I was saying. I was correct and correct. However, the force you would get from normal sunlight would be incredibly small. Probably on the order of 10^-8 newtons for one of those standard radiometers.
this is why you have these little gadgets with something that spins inside a glass bulb, but only when there is light.
They don't have mass. They have momentum. That's what causes the so called "radiation pressure". Also, that's not why radiometers spin. If the spinning of the radiometer were due to the transfer of momentum from photons, then it would actually spin in the opposite direction.
Isaac Asimov explored the idea of Gravity Powered Spacecraft in the Foundation Series of novels.
He also explored the idea of "psychohistory". Whew, what a load of garbage that was.
Then we solve it for mass:
-(SQRT((p^2 * c^2)-E^2)/c^4)=m
Shows that a highly energetic photon _can_ have some mass.
And how does it show that? (or is this just a troll day thing? I'm-a confused.)
It then clearly follows that NOTHING HAPPENS
Woah, you're way off. They get a whole lot of free publicity that's what happens. It's highly doubtful that anyone will collect the prize.
I'd be interested to see that proof, since a formula for calculating the nth digit of pi does exist.The only catch is, the formula calculates the nth digit of pi in hexadecimal.
If there really is a proof that it's impossible, then presumably that's for base 10 numbers? Do you have a reference?
A formula exists to compute it in any base.
Cantor's Continuum Hypothesis states that the "cardinality" (roughly count) of the real numbers is 2^(cardinality of integers). This is usually written using the Hebrew alpha, but I can't find this on my keyboard.
No no no no. This is a very common misunderstanding. Briefly, the cardinal numbers measure the size of sets, in that if two sets have the same size(what does this mean? well, we define it to mean that there's a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the sets) then the cardinality(the corresponding cardinal number) of the sets is equal. Aleph_0(0 is a subscript) is the cardinality of the natural numbers. It can be proved that this is the smallest infinite cardinal. It can also be proved that the cardinality of the reals is 2^Aleph_0 and that this is greater than(and not equal to) Aleph_0. Now, let Aleph_1 be the smallest cardinal greater than Aleph_0(i.e. the "size" of the smallest set that cannot be put in one-to-one correspondence with the naturals). The question is: what is Aleph_1? The Continuum Hypothesis states that Aleph_1 is the cardinality of the reals, i.e. there is no set bigger than the naturals and smaller than the reals. However, it has been shown that the Continuum Hypothesis cannot be proved or disproved within the standard axioms of set theory.