/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5408645
citation needed

>>5408621
> I figured it was understood that I was talking about the consequences of a formal system.
And who would work them out? God?

>>5408626
> private industry can get more done with less
then they don't need the funding, do they

>>5408611
of course not

>>5404992
protip: tax dollars are only finite when they benefit people who aren't already rich (i.e. their cronies)

>>5404972
"Best" is not an objective term. Apart from the trivial definition of "best default programming language" being "C++" I cannot imagine what criteria you would use which would coincidentally happen to select C++.

But if you have them handy, dear sah-gay-er, I'm willing to listen.

>>5404962
thread was already polluted with C++ from the get-go, might as well mention anything at that point

>>5404944
You can think of it this way:

THE ZEROTH LAW OF ALL PHYSICS AND EVERYTING REAL EVER: nothing happens in no time.

>>5404933
It is already standard. The inch is defined in terms of the millimeter. If you like the prefix system so much just use kilo-inches or mega-inches or milli-inches.

>>5204127
<- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Maybe you're not as smart as you think.

I am looking for Stats: Data and Models by De Veaux 2nd or 3rd edition. This book costs a lot and I need it for class. Does anyone know where I can download the pdf? I've been searching for weeks. Thanks~

Does this prognosis show anything else than Wave/Swell direction and it's height? There's no wave/swell period here, right?

and not only sound? I say: the max. number of decibels reachable that you cannot hear , >194 dB, like for example a bomb or Krakatoa.

interesting

>>3959981
>can we have a info thread
>a info
>everything written in small letters
>no apostrophes

You sure are some fella...

>>3903307
God damn it I have to keep up with that guy. Thanks.

What do you think about the banach tarski paradox? Do you think it shows that the axiom of choice is wrong in some way?

>>3902759
Because learning is interesting.

It has always seemed to me that a practical form of utilitarianism would require a depth of knowledge of the consequences of actions far and away from what we actually have and will conceivably have in the future, if it is to be distinguishable in practice from just about any other ethical system.

wat

Though you describe a function, there is no such equation in the sense you mean.

>>3896186
I don't know about his other stuff but CR is a load of crap and he should feel bad.

His awesome "amendment" or "restatement" to the CR argument has this lovely assumption: "Brains cause minds." The guy is just sad.

Also, I don't like his readings of Wittgenstein.

>>3896198
> mlp
> serious discussion
this is the whole problem with the thread

> report means of magically converted scores
> no description of method
> no standard deviations