/sci/ - Science & Math

If I want to eventually do research in the theory of computation, maybe something involving AI, should I major in Computer Science (Engineering at my uni) or mathematics and linguistics (double major)

>pathis I ze coop

So, /sci/, I recently discovered that mammals aren't defined by vivipary (inb4 idiot, I know). I decided to try and find out how mammals *are* defined. I have some questions:

1) are mammals (or other classes) defined by their properties or their evolutionary heritage?

2) it says in wikipedia that mammals all have hair and make milk. Are mammals the only organisms that have this?

3) are there any features that can define mamals?

4) did mammals evolve from dinosaurs?

QUESTION: Are you suggesting everyone agrees about the nature of vice and virtue?

CHOMSKY: In fact I think they probably have a very high measure of agreement. One strong bit of evidence for this is that everyone -- a Genghis Khan, Himmler, Bill Gates -- creates stories of themselves where they interpret their actions as working for the benefit of human beings. Even at the extreme levels of depravity, the Nazis did not boast that they wanted to kill Jews, but gave crazed justifications -- even that they were acting in 'self-defence'. It is very rare for people to justify their actions by saying 'I'm doing this to maximise my own benefit and I don't care what happens to anybody else'. That would be pathological.

QUESTION: Most people certainly try to offer moral justifications for what they do. But there is also enormous diversity in what they do, and defend as right to do.

CHOMSKY: And there is a lot of variation in people's size. Take a walk through a museum where they have the armour from medieval knights and just look at the size of them: you could barely put a child into that armour. We have the same genes today as people did then, but we are very different because there have been radical changes in diet. This is characteristic of every aspect of organic development. Hence we should not be in the least surprised to discover that it is also characteristic of our social nature, our moral positions and so on. We are biological creatures.

>>4509464
>Herrnstein’s argument is based first of all on the hypothesis that differences in mental abilities are inherited and that people close to one another in mental ability are more likely to marry and reproduce so that there will be a tendency toward long-term stratification by mental ability (which Herrnstein takes to be measured by I.Q). Secondly, Herrnstein argues that ‘success’ requires mental ability and that social rewards ‘depend on success’. This step in the argument embodies two assumptions: that it is so in fact; and that it must be so for society to function effectively. The conclusion is that there is a tendency toward hereditary meritocracy, with ‘social standing (which reflects earnings and prestige)’ concentrated in groups with higher I.Q.s. This tendency will be accelerated as society becomes more egalitarian, that is, as artificial social barriers are eliminated, defects in prenatal (e.g., nutritional) environment are overcome, and so on, so that natural ability can play a more direct role in attainment of social reward. Therefore, as society becomes more egalitarian, social rewards will be concentrated in a hereditary meritocratic elite …

My fluids text presents the following identity without proof:
<span class="math">\mathbf{u}\cdot\nabla\mathbf{u}=(\nabla\times\mathbf{u})\times\mathbf{u}+\nabla(\frac{1}{2}u^2)[/spoiler]
I couldn't find a proof for this. Could someone help? Thanks.

>>4411952
No, I was saying that those who are this ignorant and stupid are largely like that because we, as a society, failed them. People aren't born with knowledge genes, or skepticism genes, etc. That has to be taught. But it isn't, so a there's a not-insignificant percentage of the population (though by no means all, or the majority) that ends up stupid and ignorant.

No one knows more than this man.
No one can express what they know as eloquently as this man.

could someone explain in laymans terms what Chomskys scientific work is about?