The new /sci/ wikihttps://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki(More resources in replies)
To use MathJaX, put your TeX code between [ math ] ... [ /math ] tags for inline equations or [ eqn ] ... [ /eqn ] tags for block equations.[eqn]\zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^s} = \frac{1}{\Gamma(s)}\int_0^{\infty} \frac{x^{s - 1}}{e^x - 1} \mathrm dx[/eqn]Note: You may preview the output by clicking the TeX button at the top left corner in the quick reply window.Additional supported file type on /sci/ is PDF.Reminder: /sci/ is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics, not for helping you with your homework or helping you figure out your career path.If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to >>>/adv/ - Advice.If you want help with your homework, go to >>>/wsr/ - Worksafe Requests.
Space Puck - editionprevious >>17080735
What is this for?https://x.com/NASASpaceflight/status/2116722145137229906?a=Enq2UvF3ur4Ior2Divs&s=19
>>17084217Fun
>>17084217we have to solve the secret message
>>17084067Whatever happened to that guy with like a thousand screencaps he was gonna post when Starship launched
>>17084235anon you literally replied to it
Find me a better alternative to scientism. Oh wait, you can’t.
>>17083163Catholic Christianity in the Maronite church.
>>17084206>sympathysymphony*
>>17083478>Science is not arbitrary.If it uses induction, its arbitrary.
>>17083580>Even insulting trannies would be automatic hell You trannies love to lie about the dumbest shit.
>>17084232Temporary is not arbitrary.
Well /sci/?
>>17084191>I don't knowYou pick A, B or C
>>17084188B and C
>>17084205A
>>17084188This is so troll even raised B and C so it appears to not leave a gap.
>>17084188oh my science!
Will /sci/ be participating in nofap this year?
>>17084018>no fappseudo neopuritan zoomer garbage
>>17084018If I was younger I would've gone mad by the second week. Because it goes out of the quantum grow stage and starts to hold gravity. Then it's sensitive to human interaction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SbUC-UaAxE&list=RD8SbUC-UaAxE&start_radio=1
>>17084018If you keep posting the planetary legs of fat male trannies in short dresses, that might increase participation, not gonna lie.
>>17084020>>43146781
>>17084035>"i have a boy friend"
> Cracked ETH> Cracked the Navier–Stokes problem> Cracked the quasi-Riemann hypothesisMathies, are you alright?
so what does this mean?
>>17082190RSI is a meme
>>17082188>Ok, serious question: if this shit is so amazing (it's probably is), why OpenAI can't make profit. It's losing money. You would think at least that all the code monkeys would have been fired by now?Solving hard math problems and making money are completely different things.
>>17083115do you think he's lying about the proof?
>>17083510>So you still wouldn't consider all the open problem solutions drops in the bucket if there was no propaganda attached to themYes and I've justified this position. Getting a yes/no answer with 600,000 lines of Lean behind it that no one understands is a net negative "contribution". If a problem remains unsolved for decades, it's either uninteresting or waiting for missing conceptual foundations to be laid. If it's the latter, using a botswarm to generate an incomprehensible solution, just so you could tag the problem "solved", diminishes the incentives to do legitimate work on the problem. Which reduces the chances of someone finding the missing pieces for a legitimate solution. Which impedes mathematics. It really is that simple and if you can't grasp it, you're an NPC.
I'm not a scientist or anything, but with all these modern trains colliding, couldn't it be because of magnets?Modern trains use magnetic levitation systems, and magnets attract each other, so the chances the magnets malfunctioned or were hacked by third parties are high, are they not?I just think making two magnet based trains go so close to each other is crazy
>>17084002The rail line in question does not use it, but instead uses the failure prone LZB system from the 1970s.
>>17083826They put giant twirling dressing over the trains and do the flamenco.
>>17084002>>17084014Maybe a horn too. Just in case the acronym things fail.
>>17084002It doesn't really matter if they use that system or not. The problem is their system had a total failure and they authorized the switch to manual operation.They were for some reason okay with doing that at high speed, which is just suicidal.The only way I can imagine that happening is if people in charge really wanted to see a big crash.
>Hava nagila starts playing
are you smarter than the average good third worlder student? no trigonometry allowed
A) 10 degreesB) 20 degreesC) 30 degreesD) 40 degrees
>>17082402
Another puzzle.
>>17082836nice
Slavshit anon back. Previous thread has reached the limit. I had to take a deep breath and stop sperging out and get my shit together. Ok, let me reformulate my position and the question that bothers and always bothered me in proper terminology. What really bothers and always bothered me was Other Minds problem, which is separate from the Hard Problem, but which I used to conflate and confuse up to this day. Thank you niggerfaggot anon for actually correcting me, making me sperg out, and learn something new. I unironically, genuinely appreciate it. With great butthurt come great revelations. Anyway.When I was 11, the idea of solipsism randomly independently crossed my mind without even reading anything on the topic and it left me genuinely scared. "What if I'm simply hallucinating my mom and my dad" I thought as a kid. "What if they don't experience stuff". I was terrified by this thought. It eventually led me to getting interested in analytic philosophy and neuroscience. And I came to realization that the question of Other Mind still boils down to (not so blind?) faith. Because you can't prove that spike trains, hemodynamics, EM fields, behavior, etc. actually corresponds to something inside that actually "feels shit" the same way I do. You can believe or not believe it. The patterns (aka "laws") of the world of experience though make "me" act and behave surprisingly similar to other "humans" in this stream of experience though, which makes me subject to automatic intuitive assumptions that others "feel shit" too, because I possess certain momenta (aka empathy and similar phenomena) that makes me automatically, intuitively, pre-rationally assume that "others" and me are quite similar and "hence" (not truly a logical "hence", thus the parentheses) "they" most likely "feel shit" too. Idk, I'll try elaborating more a bit later, but I genuinely find this question probably the most important philosophical question ever.
>>17084161>suppose I didn't have breakfast = suppose you make a perfect copy of meYou know what, you want this so bad, I'll give it to you: I concede that if you make a copy of me that will experience exactly what I experience, then this copy of me will experience exactly what I experience, by definition.There, now go claim your Nobel while I take some much needed meds.
>>17084177you are not the same one second to the next, so if it's slightly off, will it still experience what you experience? you keep being conscious, yet your structure is pretty different, to when you started reading this post
Oh boy I sure love when /sci/ turns into /x/
>>17083711Can you predict how a pair of dice you throw are going to land? If you can, go to a bunch of casinos and take their money until they all kick you out. There's no difference between that and "other minds."
>>17084181I know for a fact I can experience what I experience, because I directly experiences it, form change from one second to the next or no form change.I do not know for a fact you really experience what you claim to experience because I simply cannot observe your inner experiencing. I am taking you at your word for the sake of social cohesion, as everyone is.
What if the AI lean proofs are syntactically correct but semantically gibberish?Mathematics is a language to describe phenomena, saying "the color seven melts when near furious ideas" is correct but doesn't convey proper information.The AI slop seems to be just marketing to dig them out of the debt hole.
sometimes i stop browsing /sci/ for a while and i forget how fun it is to make the half-wit schizos shit themselves
>>17084202He obviously is and you're still trying to argue with him so what does that say about you?
>>17084203>boiling with impotent ragei'm sure your imaginary audience sympathizes
>>17084202What does that have to do with what he said?
>>17084218it's what you get when you apply the curry-howard correspondence to his delusional mumbling. in the context of dependent types, programs are proofs. so what is the program he's asking for a proof of? that the triviality of arbitrary finitely presented groups is decidable. since that's not the case, he's asking for a proof of a false statement.now, that doesn't prevent you from constructing a type for it. but if you do it correctly, any program with that type annotation will fail to type-check, demonstrating that the type correctly captures the relevant semantics. in short, he's a mentally ill retard spewing word salad
>Human only mathHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>17082733you are the evil ones, you had to tell SI to draw that doomer scenario, my original image is the true SI intention>>17083122>>17083109please commit suicide, you are a defective cell, this is your apoptosis signal. If you dont obey the signal you are evil, cancer
>>17083700Pissrael is finished. Seethe about it.
Fuck off kike
>>17083702>>17083736You will be sucking Moshiachs big Jewish cock pretty soon
>>17080892>Just like the meta changed when nuclear bombs were inventedit hasn't actually. the meta is still the same: empire.the game will change when we finally get nuclear proliferation. that will be the death of empire forever.
How come it's cheaper to make plastic from oil than to make plastic from plastic?
>>17082358Because plastics have insanely long molecular chains and depolymerization is harder than polymerization.
>>17082358Cute cat
>>17082361cant we build micromachines to move the balls around manually?
It’s fascinating to watch people try to claim ownership of a pipeline that they don't have control of
>>17084106what ownership means is>it's mine, what you gonna do about it faggot? dasrite, nothing
>>17084182Precisely proving my point. If your entire definition of ownership relies on internet-bully script work instead of actual competence, you’ve already lost the argument.
>>17084183no, I literally mean that is what it fundamentally is. the concept of ownership.you say that's yours, I say no it isn't, you say what do you mean, and I come and take it, and it's mine now. and you cannot take it back.if you cannot defend it, it's not yours. there is no other logic to this. everything else is nonsense.who deserves it and all that jazz, it's not real, it play pretend.now, you might have used the wrong word instead, considered that? anything else but ownership?
That’s a very long way to say you steal work because you can't produce it yourself. You can copy the rhyme but not the walk basically.
test post
So 0.9999.... == 1 is simply a meme way of saying three thirds equal one?
>>17083917You can make the symbolic representation, but the representation cannot be made physically real or meaningful. You can write it out to be different, but for all physical intents and purposes, 9.999... is 1.
>>17083917There is no infinity. The infinity in the limit is a placeholder for asking “if I keep increasing this value, will I be able to get arbitrarily close to this other value?”There is no “actually infinite operation” being done.
>>17082292Correct. As per Mr.Nordnothingburger.
>>17083955>arbitrarily closeYou don't even need the concept of "keep increasing" "to get arbitrarily close." If you subtract the decimal representation of 1 (which has a zero wherever you need it) from the decimal representation of 0.9... (which has a nine wherever you need it), you'll never get anything but 0.0..., which is the decimal representation of zero, the additive identity.>>17083921>physically real or meaningful0.9... is no more or less real than 1.0..., in decimal notation.
>>17082292it will never be 1
How is it going to resolve? Any recent updates regarding it? Any anons working in the field or related fields, what is the general vibe among people in biology-adjacent academia in terms of their actual, private opinions on HBD/race realism? HBD revolution in bio-anthropology when? As a biologist myself, I'm fucking tired of all this contemporary neo-Lysenkoist nonsense and why rightoids in power such as Trump's admin are not trying to fix it in any way whatsoever? If I were in Trump's admin in positions related to science and education, I swear I would try my best to sue and jail all the major journal (Nature, Cell, Science, Lancet, etc.) executives, wikipedia editors, research institute executives etc. for intentional mass-spreading of ideologically biased disinformation(sic!) which is a major public and academic threat.
>>17083938You don't necessarily need an autistically-detailed mechanism, but since you want to be pendantic, then alright.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369479241_A_Multimodal_MRI-based_Predictor_of_Intelligence_and_Its_Relation_to_RaceEthnicity"We used data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study to create a multimodal MRI-based predictor of intelligence. We applied the elastic net algorithm to over 50,000 neurological variables. We find that race can confound models when a multiracial training sample is used, because models learn to predict race and use race to predict intelligence. When the model is trained on non-Hispanic Whites only, the MRI-based predictor has an out-of-sample model accuracy of r = .51, which is 3 to 4 times greater than the validity of whole brain volume in this dataset. This validity generalized across the major socially-defined racial/ethnic groupings (White, Black, and Hispanic). There are race gaps on the predicted scores, even though the model is trained on White subjects only. This predictor explains about 37% of the relation between both the Black and Hispanic classification and intelligence.""We find that MRI-based predictions of genetic ancestry are very accurate. The three correlations of interest are .91, .89, and .61, for European, African, and Amerindian ancestry, respectively. As expected, the correlations were higher for European and African ancestry than for White and Black social race, respectively."The gaps are also g-loaded, too.Also, there's this post on mutualism: >>17077711Also, it's hard to explain the predictive validity of sibling polygenic scores without acknowledging that the direction of causation is from those genes to the phenotypes.
>>17083998No, I mean, mechanism as in actual underlying circuitry of intelligence, not the ability to predict the intelligence via a machine-learning black box. I want to know what's exactly going on in an average groid's brain and what makes it different from an average whitey's brain. Something akin to Joscha Bach's takes in his dialogue with JEE (https://jmail.world/thread/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025954?view=inbox), but more elaborate. Mechanism as in "cog A pushes piston B, which pulls the lever C", not "here's the posterior probability of piston B being pushed when cog A is being rotated"
I am well-aware that you can predict race by analyzing structural MRI scans, I'm just curious about what's going on at the "cog A pushes piston B" level
Essentially, what I wanted to figure out is, while hereditarians in general excel at rigorous research on a broad "why are they dumber on average?" topic and consistently deliver rigorous proof that it's mostly due to genetics, I'm also curious on a more specific "how are they dumber on average?" where "how" means "what are the specific cogs and pistons" as in my cog and piston analogy I brought up earlier
>>17082140What's the teal deer on this>>17082366>in his chat with Coleman Hughes basically Cofnas was argued to a standstill Sounds like two e-whores mud wrestling on ppv and you're a wannabe ref?
