/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11435591
>nothing wrong with recursive definitions
Recursion only works if you have a base case.
e.g. If you defined an operator "addition" with:
A) addition(x,0) = x
B) addition(x,S(y)) = S(addition(x,y))
Where S is the successor function that returns the smallest integer greater than its integer input (e.g. S(4) = 5)
Then that works fine since:
1. addition(7,3)
2. = S(addition(7,2))
3. = S(S(addition(7,1)))
4. = S(S(S(addition(7,0))))
5. = S(S(S(7)))
6. =S(S(8))
7. =S(9)
8. =10
But if you were to get rid of rule A and tried to define addition as only:
addition(x,S(y)) = S(addition(x,y))
Then you wouldn't get to go from step 4 to step 5 above and would have no way of resolving to an actual answer.

Submarine-launched satellite


I am amazed. A submarine that's also a satellite.Can't wait for it to start taking tourists to Europa.

>>10959972
>"We're going to wade through the complex events that led to Jesus's death"
>*Has actor portray a bumbling idiot strawman character who says the most immoral, least intelligent things possible in response to every question*
lol. Is that REALLY all Jesus died for? I've seen more complex villains in Scooby-Doo episodes.
>inb4 "but that's how Caiaphas was in real life"
That only makes it that much worse since now you're saying it's God who's retarded.

>>10871418
>"Starve yourself" doesn't work because its pragmatic efficacy relies on your fat cells being willing to relinquish lipids before your body cannibalizes muscle tissue and otherwise starts doing serious damage to itself, which your fat cells can just refuse to do if you're metabolically disprivileged.
>I will delete comments suggesting diet or exercise.
lol, holy shit. The entire point of fat storage is for the body to USE it. What a fucking brainlet. Imagine being this far up your own ass that you invent an entire alternate reality version of biology that allows you to believe you shouldn't diet or exercise even though you're overweight because your body will start "cannibalizing muscle tissue."

>>10855765
Never saw this one before?
http://oi66.tinypic.com/244cjo6.jpg

>>10791944
>A problem doesn't have to "exist" to be solved.
Sort of, in the sense that if a "problem" doesn't exist then the solution is to point out it doesn't exist.
>For example, mathematics is far beyond the reach of what can exist, but I can solve math problems.
Mathematics exists in the abstract. The "hard problem" isn't like mathematics. It's an assertion we ought to take what our notoriously faulty intuition leads us to believe happens when we have a sensory organ interaction as an actual phenomenon that transcends the scope of modern physical science.

>>10169639
>It's an anti inflammatory. If your pain is not caused by inflammation tylenol won't do shit.
Tylenol isn't an anti-inflammatory. Where are you getting that idea from? Why would you just make shit up like that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol
>It does not have significant anti-inflammatory activity
Advil on the other hand is an anti-inflammatory (NSAID - nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug).
Tylenol is specifically recommended in cases where an NSAID could cause problems for the patient. So you got this completely wrong, its whole point is treating pain *without* being an anti-inflammatory.
>>10169506
>I've never noticed any effect
Those drugs won't make you feel some sort of high like morphine if that's what you're expecting. They just provide mild pain relief. It's not like you can give someone tylenol and then perform a limb amputation and expect them not to feel pain.
>Is the mechanism of action just taking so long to work that the pain goes away on its own?
No, neither of those drugs take very long to work (around a half hour or less after taking them).
>Or are these "medicines" just scams?
They're not "scams" just because you still felt pain after taking them you retard. Most drugs used to treat medical problems of any sort don't help 100% of users 100% of the time. The basis for drug efficacy is that patients respond to it significantly more than if they didn't take it, not that every single subject taking it responds to it.

>>10168469
This is a trick. Someone prone to overrating themselves would probably claim they were prone to underrating themselves, and vice versa. The patrician answer is to accept chances are high that you're a poor judge of yourself one way or another because judging yourself is the most biased and least impartial situation possible. And that being the case, you leave it to people or systems other than yourself to make those sorts of assessments for you. Both the claim you tend to be too hard on yourself and the claim you tend to be too easy on yourself are shit claims to make because they both carry the implicit assumption you're better than most everyone else at unbiased self-assessment in order to know this about yourself.

So we all know water puts out fire....but why does it put out fire? I never really thought about it till now. I mean isn't water made of oxygen? why wouldn't just make the fire bigger?

>>9908998
There are still useful idiots out there voting for the 2 party system and more people didn't vote in 2016 than voted for either candidate. The only real choice is to keep electing manic retards like Trump that prove the system (((magically))) stays the course regardless of who the people "elect".

>>9894651
No.
>>9894663
Also no.
Learn to Novikov self-consistency principle.
If you travel back to the past, you were always there as a time traveler in the past.
This is what "in the past" means.
You don't get to not be in the past and then "later" be in the past, that's logically incoherent. Anything you're physically able to do as far as time travel to the past goes would necessarily involve you having already been in that past as a time traveler before your departure from the future happened.
So you would never "change" events. Whatever you did in the past is what you did in the past, and it already happened before you even got into your time machine in the future.

>>9847071
>Humans haven't been around for as it takes light from the fartherest reachs of the visible universe to reach us
>visible universe
How is it visible if the light hasn't reached us yet?

>>9771715
>What exactly can they find on earth that they can't anywhere else?
Dank memes.

>>9765234
>""SAFIRE did X." - SAFIRE
lol

>>9711901
>tfw realizing sin(x) is literally just x

>>8996415
Yes the universe expanding so tjhings move away from each other.

what if the aliens we're transmitting their signals on some wavelength we can't detect yet

>>8294695