All humans are topologically equivalent to the torus.
You can grab a person by the mouth and ass hole and then diffeomorph them into a torus by evening out their digestive system.
Therefore all humans are S(1)xS(1)
unless they have something stuck up their ass, in which case they are S(2)
__________________ Is it any coincidence that the doughnut and coffee mug are also topologically equivalent?
__________________ I shall now refer to the surjective mapping from S(1)xS(1) -> S(2) as the "butt-plug" projection. I guess that's more of an insertion than a projection though.
__________________ I've got one more but it's too dirty and I'm tired.
GR uses a lot of math, but that doesn't make it a "very mathematical theory". Euclidean geometry is a very mathematical theory, GR is still just a mess. Maybe mathematicians will eventually succeed in cleaning it up enough and connecting the dots, but that's probably still a long ways off.
Oh, and Euclidean geometry isn't a physical theory. That's a straw man. A physical theory is not the same thing as a mathematical theorem.
Re:Read this today morning
on
Testing Relativity
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> You can only disprove a theory. And the easier a theory is to disprove, the better the theory.
Yes, another one of those "facts" that physicists know. Why bother looking into those lesser sciences (statistics, philosophy, mathematics, cognitive science, psychology, etc.), where people actually have some understanding of what theories are and how they get proven or disproven? Oh, no, "we are physicists, we don't need to understand these things, we know what we are doing". Sure.
You cannot prove a physical theory, ever. You can only test it and fail to disprove it. In statistics we call this "failure to reject the null hypothesis". When you perform an experiment you do not say "this data proves our theory", you say "this data agrees with our theory".
Do you have better ideas? I've had enough training in statistics, philosophy and mathematics to know that they don't.
You haven't thought that through. I said that we assume that there are some form of "additional measurements" possible (this doesn't necessarily require any kind of fundamentally new physical interaction). GR would keep its structure for the kinds of measurements we have tested in on, but it would get some additional structure (different from GR) for the new kinds of measurements.
You have just completely changed your argument. You said "mathematically identical" before. Now you are saying that the two theories will differ on a new domain of measurement which is obvious because GR is a low energy, classical theory and is going to be the classical limit, hbar->0, of some quantum gravity.
GR uses a lot of math, but that doesn't make it a "very mathematical theory". Euclidean geometry is a very mathematical theory, GR is still just a mess. Maybe mathematicians will eventually succeed in cleaning it up enough and connecting the dots, but that's probably still a long ways off.
You are so full of shit.
Einstein's GR is one single equation. Compare to Newtonian mechanics where you have Newton's second law for the dynamics and some Field equations for the sources.
Einstein's GR was the first Yang Mills theory, with the group structure of diffeomorphisms.
Einstein's GR is expressed in a coordinate free, purely geometric, language. For example, conservation of energy is derived from the geometric fact that a boundary of a boundary is zero.
I claim that Einstein's GR is the most mathematical of any physical theory that has ever existed. If GR isn't mathy then no physical theory is!
And I think physicists need a little more taste and they need to look a little more outside their very limited horizons. If they did, perhaps physics wouldn't be the mess that it is today and has been for more than a century.
There is no mess to clean up. GR is the most elegant physical theory. If GR is messy, it is only because Riemmanian Geometry and Differential Geometry are messy.
And I think physicists need a little more taste and they need to look a little more outside their very limited horizons. If they did, perhaps physics wouldn't be the mess that it is today and has been for more than a century.
You are more full of shit than I ever thought was possible. You must really get a kick out of trolling on Slashdot.
Let's see, what did the physicists do last century?
Semiconductors -> Transistor -> the mother fucking Computer Quantum Mechanics -> Quantum Field Theory -> the most accurate physical predictions EVER
> Umm no, not really. Over the century more and more alternate theories > of gravity have been proven wrong.
Spoken like a true physicist: "because lots of alternative theories to GR have been proven wrong, therefore GR must be right". You do indeed do physics justice.
You can't prove anything in physics. Every physicist knows this. You can only disprove a theory. And the easier a theory is to disprove, the better the theory. That's why things like SUSY and string theory are sometimes frowned upon.
> I know of NO fixed background or bi-metric theory that is any where near as good as Einstein's gravity.
A very simple one would be a theory that is mathematically identical to GR but has some additional kinds of measurements you could perform to determine an absolute state of motion. All the current predictions of GR would continue to hold up, but its central tenet would be wrong.
That is completely nonsensical. If you had a "mathematically identical" theory to GR then it would also have the same symmetry group of diffeomorphisms, there would be no prefered frame, and you would have relativity all over again.
GR is a very mathematical theory. All you have is a proportionality between the stress-energy-momentum (which is divergenceless) and some curvature deviation from Minkowski space-time which is also divergenceless. The fact that you are on a manifold gives you the equivalence principle straight from your psuedo-riemmanian coordinates. The relativity part comes right out of the geometry.
I think you need to ponder on the fact that your last statement is contradictory, and rethink your assertions.
The fact that GR makes numerically good predictions is nice, but there are plenty of other theories that make numerically identical predictions but do not postulate a relativity principle.
Umm no, not really. Over the century more and more alternate theories of gravity have been proven wrong.
Scalar and Vecotor field gravities have been proven wrong for a long time. A few years ago that one theory where gravity turns into antigravity at long ranges was also proven wrong. I know of NO fixed background or bi-metric theory that is any where near as good as Einstein's gravity.
Even similar theories like Gravity with torsion and slightly different versions of equivalence have been proven wrong or at least not detected to be true.
Einstein's GR is the simplest classical theory that has survived. There are more complicated theories like Kaluz-Klein Gravity+E&M and Scale Relativity with fractal dimensions that reduce down to regular GR, but proving those to be correct would not harm GR anymore than GR harmed SR.
Not every theory that makes good numerical predictions turns out to be a reasonable special case of a more general theory. Epicycles were pretty good, but Newtonian mechanics basically made them obsolete; they have no meaning anymore even as a special case. Likewise, general relativity may just turn out to be based on bogus core assumptions, and it just doesn't matter how good its numerical predictions are then.
Epicycles were a terrible fudge of science. If anyone tried to do that today, cite "fine tuning", they would be strongly frowned upon.
Even mentioning Einstein's gravity together with epicycles makes me want to do bad things to you.
What's 1+1? Have you ever seen a 1? Then how do you know two 1s make a 2?
Peano's axioms tell us how to add, and numbers don't exist in the real world - they are abstractions. Are you saying that String theory is an axiomatic theory and that strings are nonexistant abstractions?
Or are you saying that we must take certain things on faith? In that case I would say that Peano's axioms give us utility, and that utility fosters faith.
I'm sure the scientists both in favor of and against String theory would have a few choice bits of evidence to offer up in support of their theory.
There is no evidence to support String Theory as of yet. There is, however some evidence putting strict limitations on certain String Theories.
The motivation for String theory is that the math looks good, so there must be some physics there. That sounds crazy, but similar things happened in the bridge from Statistical Mechanics to Quantum Mechanics.
Even better was that Einstein described space and time in an axiomatic manner. Einstein defined time as what is measured with a clock and distance as what is measured with a ruler.
Philosophers had long since refuted earlier definitions involving inherent coordinate systems and what not. The axiomatic definition is the only thing that has held up to scrutiny. But of course its axiomatic so it doesn't have much in the way of understanding.
That texture memory is there as a big cache. The PS2 has insane bandwidth. You don't program a PS2 game like you program a PC game and fill up your video card memory with all of your textures. That's not how you program a PS2 game at all. And if you try that it would probably come out to be terrible.
Though given current programming habbits, I can understand how you could draw that conclusion.
The N64 was a failure because Nintendo couldn't get third party support. When you manufacture cartridges you gamble on how many people will buy the game.
For example, Capcom released Street Fighter II very late on the Sega Genesis. The graphics were okay, but the music and sound effects were terrible. (The Genesis didn't have good PCM, but it was obvious that little to no effort was made to adjust for that). Capcom actually lost lots of money on that port by overestimating purchases. Most people who wanted SFII had already purchased one of the previous, superior releases on the SNES. The manufacturing costs of the cartridges ate them alive. (I may have this story confused with SSF2 and not SF2, but who cares.)
When companies came to choose between the Saturn, PS1, and N64, Nintendo lost big because of that one, very stupid mistake.
The limited capacity of the cartridge also cost them Squaresoft and Final Fantasy 7. Basically this was one of the largest mistakes in all of video game history.
Does anyone know any *good* comp-sci journals? Dr. Dobbs looks promising, but I had already promised an article to JDJ.
While technically not a journal, if you want good peer review and to get your name more recognized in your field, then lanl.arXiv.org is great for physics, math, and I assume the comp-sci section is good too.
Their library was very strong in Japan with more 2D fighting games from Capcom and SNK, and many more RPG's.
I believe that before the Dreamcast, SEGA fired all of the head people in the US. I would have executed them.
I would attribute the PS1 success to the difficulty of programming the multi-cpu Saturn and the expense of manufacturing cartridges for the N64. Nintendo and SEGA dug their own graves and Sony just happened to be around at the time.
EQOA periodically unlocks new content on already on the disc. Point in case IOD. When the expansion came out, there was new content still unlocked on the original disc. Staff is in short supply, so unlocking new areas is usually reserved for insanely difficult, high level areas.
EQOA also has the ability to change existing areas. They have changed south of Freeport several times: removing and adding a village.
There are also plenty of unused caves, forts, villages... that quests NPC's get added too.
These changes are limited - thet could NOT reterrain the world like with FFXI.
I am saying that EQOA's lack of new content and boring quests is not a technological limitation. I am not saying that there isn't a problem. (I stopped playing should say something) I am talking from a technology stand point, and you are talking about the actual gameplay.
I am saying that EQOA's problems have little to do with the 3MB binary patch. The patch works well. An HD would only let them fix animations and invisible boundaries.
Slashdot Mirror
All humans are topologically equivalent to the torus.
You can grab a person by the mouth and ass hole and then diffeomorph them into a torus by evening out their digestive system.
Therefore all humans are S(1)xS(1)
unless they have something stuck up their ass, in which case they are S(2)
__________________
Is it any coincidence that the doughnut and coffee mug are also topologically equivalent?
__________________
I shall now refer to the surjective mapping from S(1)xS(1) -> S(2) as the "butt-plug" projection. I guess that's more of an insertion than a projection though.
__________________
I've got one more but it's too dirty and I'm tired.
GR uses a lot of math, but that doesn't make it a "very mathematical theory". Euclidean geometry is a very mathematical theory, GR is still just a mess. Maybe mathematicians will eventually succeed in cleaning it up enough and connecting the dots, but that's probably still a long ways off.
Oh, and Euclidean geometry isn't a physical theory. That's a straw man. A physical theory is not the same thing as a mathematical theorem.
> You can only disprove a theory. And the easier a theory is to disprove, the better the theory.
Yes, another one of those "facts" that physicists know. Why bother looking into those lesser sciences (statistics, philosophy, mathematics, cognitive science, psychology, etc.), where people actually have some understanding of what theories are and how they get proven or disproven? Oh, no, "we are physicists, we don't need to understand these things, we know what we are doing". Sure.
You cannot prove a physical theory, ever. You can only test it and fail to disprove it. In statistics we call this "failure to reject the null hypothesis". When you perform an experiment you do not say "this data proves our theory", you say "this data agrees with our theory".
Do you have better ideas? I've had enough training in statistics, philosophy and mathematics to know that they don't.
You haven't thought that through. I said that we assume that there are some form of "additional measurements" possible (this doesn't necessarily require any kind of fundamentally new physical interaction). GR would keep its structure for the kinds of measurements we have tested in on, but it would get some additional structure (different from GR) for the new kinds of measurements.
You have just completely changed your argument. You said "mathematically identical" before. Now you are saying that the two theories will differ on a new domain of measurement which is obvious because GR is a low energy, classical theory and is going to be the classical limit, hbar->0, of some quantum gravity.
GR uses a lot of math, but that doesn't make it a "very mathematical theory". Euclidean geometry is a very mathematical theory, GR is still just a mess. Maybe mathematicians will eventually succeed in cleaning it up enough and connecting the dots, but that's probably still a long ways off.
You are so full of shit.
Einstein's GR is one single equation. Compare to Newtonian mechanics where you have Newton's second law for the dynamics and some Field equations for the sources.
Einstein's GR was the first Yang Mills theory, with the group structure of diffeomorphisms.
Einstein's GR is expressed in a coordinate free, purely geometric, language. For example, conservation of energy is derived from the geometric fact that a boundary of a boundary is zero.
I claim that Einstein's GR is the most mathematical of any physical theory that has ever existed. If GR isn't mathy then no physical theory is!
And I think physicists need a little more taste and they need to look a little more outside their very limited horizons. If they did, perhaps physics wouldn't be the mess that it is today and has been for more than a century.
There is no mess to clean up. GR is the most elegant physical theory. If GR is messy, it is only because Riemmanian Geometry and Differential Geometry are messy.
And I think physicists need a little more taste and they need to look a little more outside their very limited horizons. If they did, perhaps physics wouldn't be the mess that it is today and has been for more than a century.
You are more full of shit than I ever thought was possible. You must really get a kick out of trolling on Slashdot.
Let's see, what did the physicists do last century?
Semiconductors -> Transistor -> the mother fucking Computer
Quantum Mechanics -> Quantum Field Theory -> the most accurate physical predictions EVER
> Umm no, not really. Over the century more and more alternate theories > of gravity have been proven wrong.
Spoken like a true physicist: "because lots of alternative theories to GR have been proven wrong, therefore GR must be right". You do indeed do physics justice.
You can't prove anything in physics. Every physicist knows this. You can only disprove a theory. And the easier a theory is to disprove, the better the theory. That's why things like SUSY and string theory are sometimes frowned upon.
> I know of NO fixed background or bi-metric theory that is any where near as good as Einstein's gravity.
A very simple one would be a theory that is mathematically identical to GR but has some additional kinds of measurements you could perform to determine an absolute state of motion. All the current predictions of GR would continue to hold up, but its central tenet would be wrong.
That is completely nonsensical. If you had a "mathematically identical" theory to GR then it would also have the same symmetry group of diffeomorphisms, there would be no prefered frame, and you would have relativity all over again.
GR is a very mathematical theory. All you have is a proportionality between the stress-energy-momentum (which is divergenceless) and some curvature deviation from Minkowski space-time which is also divergenceless. The fact that you are on a manifold gives you the equivalence principle straight from your psuedo-riemmanian coordinates. The relativity part comes right out of the geometry.
I think you need to ponder on the fact that your last statement is contradictory, and rethink your assertions.
Newton's gravity was tested and proven. So why test for anything else? So what if mercury's orbit is a little odd. Gravity works.
What? Mercury's orbit is odd? Why there must be another planet down there perturbing it's orbit.
Let's call that new planet "Vulcan".
I am off to point my telescope at the Sun now.
The fact that GR makes numerically good predictions is nice, but there are plenty of other theories that make numerically identical predictions but do not postulate a relativity principle.
Umm no, not really. Over the century more and more alternate theories of gravity have been proven wrong.
Scalar and Vecotor field gravities have been proven wrong for a long time. A few years ago that one theory where gravity turns into antigravity at long ranges was also proven wrong. I know of NO fixed background or bi-metric theory that is any where near as good as Einstein's gravity.
Even similar theories like Gravity with torsion and slightly different versions of equivalence have been proven wrong or at least not detected to be true.
Einstein's GR is the simplest classical theory that has survived. There are more complicated theories like Kaluz-Klein Gravity+E&M and Scale Relativity with fractal dimensions that reduce down to regular GR, but proving those to be correct would not harm GR anymore than GR harmed SR.
Not every theory that makes good numerical predictions turns out to be a reasonable special case of a more general theory. Epicycles were pretty good, but Newtonian mechanics basically made them obsolete; they have no meaning anymore even as a special case. Likewise, general relativity may just turn out to be based on bogus core assumptions, and it just doesn't matter how good its numerical predictions are then.
Epicycles were a terrible fudge of science. If anyone tried to do that today, cite "fine tuning", they would be strongly frowned upon.
Even mentioning Einstein's gravity together with epicycles makes me want to do bad things to you.
Like NG, GR will be taught for a long, long time.
What's 1+1? Have you ever seen a 1? Then how do you know two 1s make a 2?
Peano's axioms tell us how to add, and numbers don't exist in the real world - they are abstractions. Are you saying that String theory is an axiomatic theory and that strings are nonexistant abstractions?
Or are you saying that we must take certain things on faith? In that case I would say that Peano's axioms give us utility, and that utility fosters faith.
I'm sure the scientists both in favor of and against String theory would have a few choice bits of evidence to offer up in support of their theory.
There is no evidence to support String Theory as of yet. There is, however some evidence putting strict limitations on certain String Theories.
The motivation for String theory is that the math looks good, so there must be some physics there. That sounds crazy, but similar things happened in the bridge from Statistical Mechanics to Quantum Mechanics.
Even better was that Einstein described space and time in an axiomatic manner. Einstein defined time as what is measured with a clock and distance as what is measured with a ruler.
Philosophers had long since refuted earlier definitions involving inherent coordinate systems and what not. The axiomatic definition is the only thing that has held up to scrutiny. But of course its axiomatic so it doesn't have much in the way of understanding.
And here is where I debunked this steaming pile of crank shit on Slashdot.
Yes a full sized blackhole would take a very long time to radiate away, but you could have had smaller black holes formed in the early universe.
Would they fall into the gravity of the Earth and eat away at the Earth's core, dooming mankind forever? Will they?
Well now we have just drawn a new arbitrary line in the sand.
Instead of arbitrary radius and mass, we have to set some arbitrary spherical aberation.
How can we objectively tell how spherical an object is unless we take some sum of its spherical harmonics?
Carrots and potatos are tubers - they are roots. Lettuce is a leaf, and celery is a stalk.
... are all fruit.
Broccoli is a flower.
Tomatos, Peppers, Squash,
What gets me is that people call corn a vegetable, but it has tons of sugar in it?
By replying to this post you agree that you're wrong.
I am wrong.
my favorite combo... but lags in SNES...
jumping fierce + close fierce uppercut + sonic boom + referse fierce + sonic boom.
Well obviously if the game didn't slow down then you wouldn't have enough time to charge for the second sonic boom.
Seeing that the 32X removed all of the slowdown from all of my games anyhow, I really don't see the point of any of this.
Consider cmd.exe to be the functional equivalent of csh.
I should just kill you right now.
Wow, did that just slip out.? Sorry, I don't know what just happened.
That texture memory is there as a big cache. The PS2 has insane bandwidth. You don't program a PS2 game like you program a PC game and fill up your video card memory with all of your textures. That's not how you program a PS2 game at all. And if you try that it would probably come out to be terrible.
Though given current programming habbits, I can understand how you could draw that conclusion.
The theoretical PS3+PS2 hardware should be powerful enough, and have enough chips in parallel to fully emulate the PS1 in software.
And from what I know of how emulation works, the XBox2 being backwards compatible via software emulation is completely and absolutely impossible.
The N64 was a failure because Nintendo couldn't get third party support. When you manufacture cartridges you gamble on how many people will buy the game.
For example, Capcom released Street Fighter II very late on the Sega Genesis. The graphics were okay, but the music and sound effects were terrible. (The Genesis didn't have good PCM, but it was obvious that little to no effort was made to adjust for that). Capcom actually lost lots of money on that port by overestimating purchases. Most people who wanted SFII had already purchased one of the previous, superior releases on the SNES. The manufacturing costs of the cartridges ate them alive. (I may have this story confused with SSF2 and not SF2, but who cares.)
When companies came to choose between the Saturn, PS1, and N64, Nintendo lost big because of that one, very stupid mistake.
The limited capacity of the cartridge also cost them Squaresoft and Final Fantasy 7. Basically this was one of the largest mistakes in all of video game history.
Does anyone know any *good* comp-sci journals? Dr. Dobbs looks promising, but I had already promised an article to JDJ.
While technically not a journal, if you want good peer review and to get your name more recognized in your field, then lanl.arXiv.org is great for physics, math, and I assume the comp-sci section is good too.
The Saturn did well in Japan.
Their library was very strong in Japan with more 2D fighting games from Capcom and SNK, and many more RPG's.
I believe that before the Dreamcast, SEGA fired all of the head people in the US. I would have executed them.
I would attribute the PS1 success to the difficulty of programming the multi-cpu Saturn and the expense of manufacturing cartridges for the N64. Nintendo and SEGA dug their own graves and Sony just happened to be around at the time.
Is that Spanglish or are you bullshitting? I have never heard that word.
United States is "Estados Unidos". You put a "unadu" suffix on State, and a "unese" prefix on United. I am unfamiliar with these suffixes.
People who live in the US are "americano" or "norteamericano". I have heard them called worse things, but not that.
And as for google searches
Su busqueda - Estunadu - no produjo ningun documento.
No se encontraron paginas que contengan "estunadu".
and
Su busqueda - Unidunese - no produjo ningun documento.
No se encontraron paginas que contengan "unidunese".
Nothing for either. And google suggested unidense, an English word, for your "unidunese".
Does it toggle with a single click on a button?
yes
and then go away when the workspace is selected?
no, that would be dumb. You would have to use it to understand why.
EQOA periodically unlocks new content on already on the disc. Point in case IOD. When the expansion came out, there was new content still unlocked on the original disc. Staff is in short supply, so unlocking new areas is usually reserved for insanely difficult, high level areas.
... that quests NPC's get added too.
EQOA also has the ability to change existing areas. They have changed south of Freeport several times: removing and adding a village.
There are also plenty of unused caves, forts, villages
These changes are limited - thet could NOT reterrain the world like with FFXI.
I am saying that EQOA's lack of new content and boring quests is not a technological limitation. I am not saying that there isn't a problem. (I stopped playing should say something) I am talking from a technology stand point, and you are talking about the actual gameplay.
I am saying that EQOA's problems have little to do with the 3MB binary patch. The patch works well. An HD would only let them fix animations and invisible boundaries.
The bible also doesn't disallow lesbians, only male homosexuals. So according to the bible, lesbians are A O K.
Is this why Americans like lesbians so much?