/sci/ - Science & Math

I wouldn't call it a generator per se. It pumps this red stuff that has iron in it. The greatest change in momentum for said element that is purportedly able to affect and be affected by electromagnetic fields would likely be the heart.

The change in the atoms bit is pure and utter Bull. At best, you can create chains with your blood cells and then die. If you get lucky and do the other thing, you still die. Just more horribly, though you get to claim that you became an energy-being. (ie. you became a plasma that creates a nuclear power for a very very short duration prior to becoming unstable, resulting in a pretty big puddle of goo.)

Ok... so we have say... 700 million pointer readers that exist at any static moment or event. Which one moves first?

It has 3 different frequencies, and as such you can't ignore all 3 frequencies. The white squares position themselves such that the joined ones always move to a particular rotation for each line. As such, B and H are removed from the pool.

The black squares add up such that the top row = 5, the next row = 6, and the final row should = 7.

Didn't figure out the two grey ones. I chose F, and averaged 115 IQ

I've done different kinds of IQ tests online, and can range from 94 to past 220.

Like, OP said previously, already having the knowledge helps. As well, any which ask for "age" will affect your score alot. One I tested that was online, and given being 10 years older, I got to loose 15 IQ points for the exact same set of answers. Comparing one set of IQ from tests from another can be difficult since they aren't all derived from the same formula.

I think mine would be closer to metamory/metcognition then eidatic. Sometimes, it's very eidetic / event oriented, but I get some very very bad Tip of Tongue problems. (language can be an issue.)

I wouldn't be surprised if there's some work out there that shows that certain chemicals, etc. bond really well to some of the ash compounds. Then it's planes, and planes, and lots of dead people prior to patents.

And if you want to try/do some online type stuff, corsera was alright in regards to some learning. There might be one or two free courses available as a supplementary that'll get done before you start school again.

Laws trumps rules. Follow the property listings.
Pemdas,Bedmas, or any other kind of consonent/vowel subjugate of 2 values that is simply a implication known for being an order of predicates is more and less derived from the property system of numbers.

If the system doesn't provide the correct relationship, it isn't a correct answer, nor properly annotated via the lovely jibberish we humans like to cough up. (whatever that is.)

The reason why I say it's a kind of quadratic is simply because how awesome 1 exponentials are. They always equal one ergo it's simply a simplification of the multiples of values that give provides a multiplication by 0 which makes this question so very awesome. For some reason, only 1 version of a multiple of 0 cannot be reduced to the actual number 0, in this case. All others are normal multiplication values that give you a +(a,b) relationship where one value == 0.

:D

There are no brackets, ergo no Pemdas or Bemdas, or any other version that represents the Bracketed experience. That leaves us with multiplication, addition and subtraction.

Subtraction in this case has to be done independent from the rest because it does not possess commutative or associative properties.

It might be possible to produce a distributive property if you can provide a quadratic system that will provide a very specific qualifier such that the last value within the last variable can be quantitatively stated as being A x B. (while also removing any exponential components from the last representation of the number 1 from our string of numbers.)

It specifically states that there are only specific objects in the room, and then excludes you from said room.

^_^ I was looking at this article recently about specific magnetic currents that act essentially like wormholes for the propagation of sun particles. Basically they hitch a ride on the magnetic loop between the sun nodes and the earth nodes.

It's possible that we could propagate a certain percentage of the rays, and inverse the process artificially, by getting a specific magnetic field modulator/anchor in a location outside of the mars system and then "link" up to redirect some of the rays. Create a deflector grid, essentially.

Depends.

Sometimes the Operands dictate that the addition sign is done prior to the subtraction.

As such:
10 - (1+1+1+1+1+(1x0) = 5
or
10 - (6x0) = 10.

With the communative property, we also are allowed to derive:
10 - 1 = 9. (as 5+1 = 1+5)
or
10 - 0(6) = 10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y9h1oqv21Vs#at=83

I've been pretending to work out how to build a more stable electron flow for "microscope" accuracy.

Oh, and we could simplify things and tell the people who could actually use the land that no... you aren't allowed. (like in Canada. ^_^)

I don't know, it would very well cover a few other fringe sciences like climate change (Carbon storage), population growth over area, and food production.

..... Likely doesn't calculate anything? Given the 3 spatials (and my limited work in the area), to me it looks like it syncs up the point at which there is no relationship for all values.

(the problem with not knowing that one phi is another phi doesn't help, and the image is still blurry, making hard to read.)

We've got enough storage to do it already, the problem is the specifics of "mind". We're probably close enough that we could duplicate most of the physical parameters, but we don't have a good enough grasp for what goes where yet, nor are we really capable of saying that our logic gates are synonymous with how the brain sorts it's system.

The chemical signals and electrical values to calculate a functional brain would still likely be well beyond our capability. Our allegories for talking about the brain and thoughts are very much over simplified.

With a 10 year time-frame, I'd say it would look very much like the Sim City AI fiasco, but played on a c64.

Philosophically speaking, this experiment is pure bung. The pointer readers give the correct results. If you have nothing attributed to the cat, you cannot give an answer. By providing a QM equivalent to an answer, you forgo knowing about it.

Basically it's a kind of information theory. The particular links he is using in this case aren't at the right position to provide a reductionist system that provides an axiom.

See P vs. NP Set theory. "1" in this case is a declaration of parameters for a Set, and phi is the designation of a series of elements which make up a set that isn't capable of being made.

Pipe -> I'm mostly using the guesses from this thread and running different Google parameters for what it was worth. Those 2 Jean Baptiste names gave the closest co-relations.

We can't even confirm if the mirror went to the address of the recipient; as it could of been loot/ etc.

There are a few more Jean Baptiste variants, but nothing that struck out as useful. One of the nice things about the crypto analysis that was shown had a nice bonus of being decipherable quite easily with a pen/paper and key system; which provides support for being authentic.

I'm actually more interested in the scratched out section, and the scratched out position before ZU. The differences in the way they get scratched out show a dissimilarity in their purpose for being on the note in the first place. (I am however not a cryptologist in any way.)

I almost want to dumb it down and say anything greater then 26....

I've tried some random IQ tests online, and they ran from 120 to 210; with the exclusion of that one that required you to know about a bridge by a town with a population of around 5000; somewhere in the United States.

The major difference that nobody bothers to really examine is the exact processing involved for further calculations.

The issue at hand is that when we state that something is a specific number mathematically; we do not delineate what kind of number it really is from a set of proposition.

(x]
[x)
[x]
(x)

Each of these fills the requirement for specifically being the mathematical number x. When we use the definition to derive the number from a mathematical process, we can however decide which x we refer to.

Given two values a,b. ; we can specify that a and b are mathematical numbers; but we cannot quite claim which of the 4 types they are when we add them together to make proposition of a mathematical number X.


The limit barrier states that our specific numbers add up in such a way that our proposition to the specific mathematical number is supposed to look like:

](x

The argument for "approaching 1" however claims that the proposition to the argument is

)x]

The argument is told such that our set isn't properly propositioned to make said point.

Now due to how we create our numbering system; we end up with an even more problematic system. Sometimes our n value for getting closer to infinity will actually supply the correct proposition to our mathematical number.

As we are making use of mathematics; we end up in an axiom of choice such that our propositions for the mathematical numbers that make up X can be any of the first 4 values. Given that we aren't going to matrice our numbers to provide the odds that a number is mathematically consistent within the function of the set; we automatically perform a correctness value such that only the matrix that provides the correct propositional value will be counted as being True. In this regard we no longer have the problem of having to correct an infinite value sequence.

Ie: We call the mathematical number ([x)] and performing the equations that make two numbers a, b become X, works out the problem.

So much information flying by.

My side of the thread via google and some random text information for Jean Baptiste supplied:

Jean Baptiste Carrier: Nantes + Spy.
Jean Baptiste Chavannes : Haiti Soldier and whatnot, linked loosely to Guatemala location.

Notation concerning mapping: Older maps are notoriously inaccurate, mostly due to humans being lazy in the accuracy department after the first half dozen checks.

One of the difficulties of the map and quotation bit is that there seems to be a certain amount of information missing. As such, I would make the determination that the parties involved in the conversation knew the general location already.

You might be able to cross-reference some of the name guesses of the writer with a social-reference map to correlate where the mirror went when the mirror was transported. If their history matches just 1 name within the first 3 tiers of association, it would strongly point to the originator of the code. (UK nantes and germany?)