/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14951048

>What people call "AI" today is not generally intelligent and will never be generally intelligent.

Bingo.

>>14960693

>STEM
>Career

XD

>>14957994

I think you might wanna stop drinking hand sanitizer there as your statement does make very little sense ...

>>14956925

What is a "scam". Please specify.

>>14956178

>http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=0A4B137CBFBF4C8916DE9718F891D43A

Otherwise, for more specific questions ... I'd be glad to be of service.

I have a problem with recursively solving infinity for arbitrary languages and problem presenters.

What is the cutest way/method/practice/approach/technique I can use to solve my own infinity by placing them at the back of my eternal process queue?

>Solivagus' nom de guerre = 竜倒変態錯

Best video

>>10731650
Nature

Is that the brain playing with us ? Or the matrix ?

strange illusion

just the strangeness of our brain

The bottom line is, the image begins to be processed even on the retina. The cable in the visual cortex are not raw pixels, and geometric primitives, circle lines and so on. Because of this, you can overload the retina and cause funny glitches just looking at you smart-mouthed picture

Why when watching videos with abstract illusion after 2 minutes of viewing , the reality begins to distort ?
Is it related to the vulnerability of our matrix ? Or a side effect of our brain ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym60j5szt3o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK0TDNAaiqg

From r/SBTcommunity subreddit

Im not claiming to know anything about Google Earth, to the Jackass, I asked what people's opinion was of the object, real , illusion, glitch or other. I saw it so I asked. Coord- 74°07'21"S 103°25'54"W. -72M. G

This is a screenshot of an object underwater from Google Earth in Antarctica . Man-made or alien made you be the judge

>>9922203
P = NP-Confidence; 7

>>9918365
>>9922054

Well the fact is that we were using "R" to study ecology population of some fish specie.
We created a vector to study the population increase in a empty river starting from 100 individuals. Then we used the eigen analysis (eigen matrix) to know the transition matrix of that population in 50 years. Then, we plotted the eigen analysis, and we came out with our unknown graph.
taxvit <- list(
sou = 0.8, #egg surv
s0 = 0.045, #1yo surv
sa = 0.57, #1yo surv and 2+yo surv
pf3 = 0.62, #rep. prov 3yo
pf4 = 0.94, #rep. prov 4yo
pf5 = 0.20, #rep. prov. 5yo
f3 = 106, #average size 3yo(rep)
f4 = 188, #average size 4yo(rep)
f5 = 280) #average size 5yo(rep)
# postreproduction symbolic transition matrix:
matsim <- expression(0, 0, 0, pf3*f3*sou*0.5, pf4*f4*sou*0.5, pf5*f5*sou*0.5, 0,
s0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, sa, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, sa, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, sa, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, sa, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, sa, 0)
# evaluate the symbolic matrix, matsim,
Apre <- matrix(sapply(matsim, eval, taxvit), ncol=7, byrow=TRUE)
rownames(Apre) <- colnames(Apre) <- c("Alevi", "Juvenil", "Adult +2", "Adult +3", "Adult +4", "Adult +5", "Adult +6")
Apre
#pop. vector, 100 individuals 3 and 4 yo matrix
n100 <- matrix(
c(0, 0, 0, 50, 50, 0, 0),
ncol=1)
#multiply matrix per vector
new <- Apre %*% n100
#popbio package
install.packages("popbio")
library(popbio)
n<- pop.projection (Apre, n100, 51)
n
lambda(Apre)

#graph projection from now to 50 years

plot(n$stage.vectors)

plot(n$pop.sizes, type="l", xlab="years", ylab="pop size")


n0pre <- matrix( c(0, 0, 0, 0, 100, 0, 0), ncol=1)
n<-pop.projection (Apre, n100, 50)
n

lambda(Apre)

plot(n$stage.vectors)
plot(n$pop.sizes, type="l", xlab="yrs", ylab="populationsize")

#eiugen function
vp<-eigen(Apre)
vp

plot(vp$vectors)
plot(vp$vectors, type="l", xlab="years", ylab="population size")

High resolution graphics require more engineering, and less art. You don't as much (though you still do) evaluate your work perceptively, you just make it like it's 'supposed' to look as your experience tells you it should and in doing so formulating more of an appeal to the logic than the senses.

Ever try to draw something in very low resolution? If you colour in pixels how you expect they should be your work will end up looking nothing like you desired.

It takes more work, greater difficulty. You must do things in awkward and unexpected manners. And ultimately, it is the unexpected that makes the world interesting as, conversely, the expected makes it comforting.

High resolution graphics require more engineering, and less art. You don't as much (though you still do) evaluate your work perceptively, you just make it like it's 'supposed' to look as your experience tells you it should and in doing so formulating more of an appeal to the logic than the senses.

Ever try to draw something in very low resolution? If you colour in pixels how you expect they should be your work will end up looking nothing like you desired.

It takes more work, greater difficulty. You must do things in awkward and unexpected manners. And ultimately, it is the unexpected that makes the world interesting as, conversely, the expected does comforting.

>>5498227
I meant it's not incredible in the sense that it's not overtly false. I didn't mean to imply it was trivial.

I have yet to watch your link, I should add.

>>5495697
There isn't anything incredible about these claims.

A robot and a car are both ultimately results of evolution, complex beyond compare of anything in the natural world.

That one organism may be distributed over multiple bodies is nothing alien either. How many cells do you consist of? How many organs, organelles, bacteria. Without the interplay of myriad organisms the the organism that you consider "you" would not function.

Life is the complex interplay of elements. It isn't strictly limited what can be "alive", just that carbon life is what we're most familiar with.