Hmm, what is the definition of "random" then? By the definition you seem to be using here, it's quite obvious that the digits of Pi are *not* random, since anyone can calculate them. Furthermore, they can all be compressed by a 100% ratio, from an infinite amount of digits to two bytes representing the characters 'P' and 'i'.
Well, I'm sure that's not the only way to prove it, but here's the most popular proof that sqrt(2) is irrational:
Let's assume that sqrt(2) is rational. Then it can be represented by p/q where p and q are integer numbers with no common factors. So sqrt(2) = p/q. Then 2=(p^2)/(q^2) or 2*(q^2)=p^2. Since q^2 is an integer, p^2 must be even. This can only be if p itself is even. So we can write p=2*n where n is an integer. Then p^2=4*n^2. Then 2*(q^2)=4*(n^2) or (q^2)=2*(n^2) which in turn means that q^2 is even and so is q. So both p and q are even. But we assumed that p and q had no common factors, hence the contradiction, so sqrt(2) is not a rational number.
Among the most puzzling mysteries: Mathematicians are pretty sure, but still cannot prove conclusively, that the numbers following 3.141592 occur randomly.
Last time I checked, we were pretty sure Pi was irrational, no?
Each spin network resembles a snapshot, a frozen moment in the universe. Off paper, the spin networks evolve and change based on simple mathematical rules and become bigger and more complex, eventually developing into the large-scale space we inhabit.
Is it just me or does this look a lot like what Wolfram suggested in "A new kind of science"?
Hey mister nit pick. Do you live in your mother's basement?
there is no place for ego (and insults) in a scientific argument...
You said it all by yourself.
To start off, take this statement from a reply post: I think that treating this as a kinetics problem is somewhat oversimplifying the situation. Subatomic particles don't hit cells in the same way that a hammer would
I completely agree. Reread the last paragraph of my post. I don't know how to calculate properly the amount of energy released by such a particle when going through the body, but I do know that the way you did it is wrong.
The quark has the possibility of not touching you at all while passing through you... just like neutrinos can fly through the earth without ever touching anything... So the effect of this quark going through your body is most likely going to be to leave a disturbance trail - massive vibrations most likely... not a puncture hole.
Perhaps, perhaps not. You're not backing up what you're saying... When you say that something is going to happen "most likely", it either needs to be very obvious, or you need to back it up with calculations. I was talking about a puncture hole because that's what I thought you were thinking. I apologize if I was wrong.
The point you probably didn't understand about the purely formal equation f'(x) = df/dx is that using the argument that something is very small doesn't mean it won't do any damage.
No, I understand the point you're making perfectly. You're even right. The problem is that it's a bad analogy. You're using something that appears to be clever to prove an obvious point. You don't need calculus to make a point about something small being able to do massive damage... It's pretty obvious. I showed, via calculations, that if the model of this event (quark going through human body) is puncture hole, then the amount of energy released is going to be very small.
You are plain wrong. Something traveling at the speed of light which has a mass must expend an infinite amount of energy to get to that speed. If it is at the speed of light, it must have zero mass (not infinite).
True, but you're talking about rest mass, not mass. I was talking about (actual) mass. Photons, by the way, do have mass, but no rest mass. See this.
I'm sorry, but your math and physics are really screwed up.
It's like saying f'(x) = df/dx is 0 because df is almost zero... you are neglecting the very important fact that dx is almost zero too.
Not at all. It's like saying that W=Fx (W=work, aka energy, F=the force of the quark on your body and x=the distance it travels through your body). Because F is proportional to the area of contact, which is very small, F is also very small. x is under 0.5m and so the overall energy released by the quark travelling through your body would be very small.
To apply it back to this case: (a previous post mentionned it too) if that thing weighed only a gram, but was traveling at the speed of light...
Umm, last I heard something travelling at the speed of light must have an infinite mass. Another hint which gives away your ignorance is that weight is measured in newtons, not grams.
Also, note that my calculation of the amount of energy released by the quark going through your body is very crude - it doesn't take into account any of the laws that come in effect only for such massive bodies travelling at such great speeds, not to speak of any special laws that might apply to quarks themselves.
Jeez, somebody please moderate it again to something other than "funny". And whoever moderated it as funny should really rethink the whole concept of humor.
Additionally, this operation, while not devoid of human workers, won't have so many people laboring at the anchor-station or on the cable to make a terrorist attack really that fruitful. There just isn't that much casualty potential (although the capital losses could be considerable).
Can you imagine the tidal wave (not to mention earthquakes) created by this thing falling, wrapping around the equator? I'm too lazy to find it, but the last time this thing was discussed on slashdot, someone posted a calculation of how much energy this thin would store and what would happen if all of it got released when hitting the ground/water, and it wasn't a pretty scenario.
Re:Open source projects tend to have a lower bug-r
on
Open Source Studies
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's much harder to produce a bug free graphical UI application than it is a daemon. Users can (and will) do a magnitude more things than you can receive on an open socket. When "talking" to a user, you will also need to give him a lot more functionality and a much more diverse interface (accessibility, keyboard navigation, mouse navigation) than you will ever need to give another application that's communicating with yours via a clearly defined protocol.
It seems that the lecture videos format (at least for Linear Algebra, which I checked) is Realplayer's. Anyone knows whether it'll be provided in a friendlier format as well?
Oh, and Winboard is a rather old client, but it (currently) supports more chess servers and doubles as a front end for chess engines (default installation comes with GNUChess).
For those unfamiliar with double checked locking, it's explained here.
The basic claim, is that code like this: public class Singleton{
private static Singleton instance;
public Singleton getInstance(){
if (instance == null){
synchronized(Singleton.class){
if (instance == null)
instance = new Singleton();
}
}
return instance;
}
} doesn't work, and the only way to fix it is put the first (instance == null) check into the synchronized block, incurring the synchronization penalty every time the method is called.
You could also simply avoid lazy initialization and instantiate the singleton when the class is loaded.
Oh, the server will run both offboard (when a connection to the net is available) and onboard, when one isn't. Our production server currently runs on Solaris, so Linux should be no problem whatsoever. I'm not we're going to officially support Linux, but the software will definitely run on it.
"Until we secure our cyber infrastructure, a few keystrokes and an Internet connection is all one needs to disable the economy and endanger lives," sponsor Lamar Smith, R-Tex., said earlier this year. "A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb."
And of course the possibility of a life sentence will prevent terrorists from doing their business, whether electronically or in real life. Hmm, let's see - should I go blow up myself and take 50 more people with me or attack airplane computer systems, killing thousands and serve life sentence? Tough choice.
How about actually securing your cyber infrastructure by making sure it's secure? By running OpenBSD with open source applications that have been reviewed by tens of security experts! By prohibiting the use of closed source applications wherever security is of any importance!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they have to get the money to pay for all those Oracle licenses somewhere...
Hmm, what is the definition of "random" then? By the definition you seem to be using here, it's quite obvious that the digits of Pi are *not* random, since anyone can calculate them. Furthermore, they can all be compressed by a 100% ratio, from an infinite amount of digits to two bytes representing the characters 'P' and 'i'.
Well, I'm sure that's not the only way to prove it, but here's the most popular proof that sqrt(2) is irrational:
Let's assume that sqrt(2) is rational. Then it can be represented by p/q where p and q are integer numbers with no common factors. So sqrt(2) = p/q. Then 2=(p^2)/(q^2) or 2*(q^2)=p^2. Since q^2 is an integer, p^2 must be even. This can only be if p itself is even. So we can write p=2*n where n is an integer. Then p^2=4*n^2. Then 2*(q^2)=4*(n^2) or (q^2)=2*(n^2) which in turn means that q^2 is even and so is q. So both p and q are even. But we assumed that p and q had no common factors, hence the contradiction, so sqrt(2) is not a rational number.
Hmm, quoting the article:
Among the most puzzling mysteries: Mathematicians are pretty sure, but still cannot prove conclusively, that the numbers following 3.141592 occur randomly.
Last time I checked, we were pretty sure Pi was irrational, no?
From the article:
Each spin network resembles a snapshot, a frozen moment in the universe. Off paper, the spin networks evolve and change based on simple mathematical rules and become bigger and more complex, eventually developing into the large-scale space we inhabit.
Is it just me or does this look a lot like what Wolfram suggested in "A new kind of science"?
What, today?
Hey mister nit pick. Do you live in your mother's basement?
there is no place for ego (and insults) in a scientific argument...
You said it all by yourself.
To start off, take this statement from a reply post: I think that treating this as a kinetics problem is somewhat oversimplifying the situation. Subatomic particles don't hit cells in the same way that a hammer would
I completely agree. Reread the last paragraph of my post. I don't know how to calculate properly the amount of energy released by such a particle when going through the body, but I do know that the way you did it is wrong.
The quark has the possibility of not touching you at all while passing through you... just like neutrinos can fly through the earth without ever touching anything... So the effect of this quark going through your body is most likely going to be to leave a disturbance trail - massive vibrations most likely... not a puncture hole.
Perhaps, perhaps not. You're not backing up what you're saying... When you say that something is going to happen "most likely", it either needs to be very obvious, or you need to back it up with calculations. I was talking about a puncture hole because that's what I thought you were thinking. I apologize if I was wrong.
The point you probably didn't understand about the purely formal equation f'(x) = df/dx is that using the argument that something is very small doesn't mean it won't do any damage.
No, I understand the point you're making perfectly. You're even right. The problem is that it's a bad analogy. You're using something that appears to be clever to prove an obvious point. You don't need calculus to make a point about something small being able to do massive damage... It's pretty obvious. I showed, via calculations, that if the model of this event (quark going through human body) is puncture hole, then the amount of energy released is going to be very small.
You are plain wrong. Something traveling at the speed of light which has a mass must expend an infinite amount of energy to get to that speed. If it is at the speed of light, it must have zero mass (not infinite).
True, but you're talking about rest mass, not mass. I was talking about (actual) mass. Photons, by the way, do have mass, but no rest mass. See this.
I'm sorry, but your math and physics are really screwed up.
It's like saying f'(x) = df/dx is 0 because df is almost zero... you are neglecting the very important fact that dx is almost zero too.
Not at all. It's like saying that W=Fx (W=work, aka energy, F=the force of the quark on your body and x=the distance it travels through your body). Because F is proportional to the area of contact, which is very small, F is also very small. x is under 0.5m and so the overall energy released by the quark travelling through your body would be very small.
To apply it back to this case: (a previous post mentionned it too) if that thing weighed only a gram, but was traveling at the speed of light...
Umm, last I heard something travelling at the speed of light must have an infinite mass. Another hint which gives away your ignorance is that weight is measured in newtons, not grams.
Also, note that my calculation of the amount of energy released by the quark going through your body is very crude - it doesn't take into account any of the laws that come in effect only for such massive bodies travelling at such great speeds, not to speak of any special laws that might apply to quarks themselves.
Jeez, somebody please moderate it again to something other than "funny". And whoever moderated it as funny should really rethink the whole concept of humor.
or about 7 students' tuition.
While I think it's really great that MIT are putting their course materials online, I'd prefer to be able to study at MIT.
All comercial Unices except Solaris are being replaced by Linux, not just AIX.
You meant to say proprietary.
Additionally, this operation, while not devoid of human workers, won't have so many people laboring at the anchor-station or on the cable to make a terrorist attack really that fruitful. There just isn't that much casualty potential (although the capital losses could be considerable).
Can you imagine the tidal wave (not to mention earthquakes) created by this thing falling, wrapping around the equator? I'm too lazy to find it, but the last time this thing was discussed on slashdot, someone posted a calculation of how much energy this thin would store and what would happen if all of it got released when hitting the ground/water, and it wasn't a pretty scenario.
It's much harder to produce a bug free graphical UI application than it is a daemon. Users can (and will) do a magnitude more things than you can receive on an open socket. When "talking" to a user, you will also need to give him a lot more functionality and a much more diverse interface (accessibility, keyboard navigation, mouse navigation) than you will ever need to give another application that's communicating with yours via a clearly defined protocol.
Except that DeepFritz had white in this game, and when playing black at this level, your primary objective is not to lose, winning being secondary.
Of course I meant RealMedia, or whatever they call their format, not RealAudio :-)
It seems that the lecture videos format (at least for Linear Algebra, which I checked) is Realplayer's. Anyone knows whether it'll be provided in a friendlier format as well?
voice controlled, three dimensional surgery assisting robot.
Hmm, has anyone ever seen a two dimension robot? Or four dimensional for that matter?
Oh, and Winboard is a rather old client, but it (currently) supports more chess servers and doubles as a front end for chess engines (default installation comes with GNUChess).
My own project - A chess client</shameless plug>
Since when is sex a religion?
I thought Linux didn't have real threads, and they were implemented as processes... Am I missing something?
For those unfamiliar with double checked locking, it's explained here.
The basic claim, is that code like this:
public class Singleton{
private static Singleton instance;
public Singleton getInstance(){
if (instance == null){
synchronized(Singleton.class){
if (instance == null)
instance = new Singleton();
}
}
return instance;
}
}
doesn't work, and the only way to fix it is put the first (instance == null) check into the synchronized block, incurring the synchronization penalty every time the method is called.
You could also simply avoid lazy initialization and instantiate the singleton when the class is loaded.
Oh, the server will run both offboard (when a connection to the net is available) and onboard, when one isn't. Our production server currently runs on Solaris, so Linux should be no problem whatsoever. I'm not we're going to officially support Linux, but the software will definitely run on it.
Is anyone else out there working on a decent navigation application?"
Telmap are doing just that. The client is written in Java, and will run properly under Linux.
"Until we secure our cyber infrastructure, a few keystrokes and an Internet connection is all one needs to disable the economy and endanger lives," sponsor Lamar Smith, R-Tex., said earlier this year. "A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb."
And of course the possibility of a life sentence will prevent terrorists from doing their business, whether electronically or in real life. Hmm, let's see - should I go blow up myself and take 50 more people with me or attack airplane computer systems, killing thousands and serve life sentence? Tough choice.
How about actually securing your cyber infrastructure by making sure it's secure? By running OpenBSD with open source applications that have been reviewed by tens of security experts! By prohibiting the use of closed source applications wherever security is of any importance!