/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16184695
vaginas extend, flare out and envelop the penis coming near at high speed
it's a bit freaky the first time you experience it

>>16084808
>Climate Change Institute
Random question: If tomorrow morning for whatever reason everyone in the world decided that global warming wasn't a problem and no one should be pissing themselves about it anymore what would happen to the "Climate Change Institute" and everyone who works there?

>>15908091 (Me)
>>15908100 (Me)
I posted these expecting someone to either call me a retard or tell me I'm right.

I'm still wondering about Longo's FMD, which is basically a low calorie keto diet for 5 days to induce ketosis and thus autophagy, but I seriously doubt its effectiveness when you're supposed to do it only once a month. You only get like 3 days worth of ketosis/autophagy per month. That's fucking nothing. Or does this somehow slow down aging and decrease IGF-1 for the rest of the month as well? What do my longevity bros think?

i have a maths/physics question for you /sci/
could all living indians fit inside the ganges at the same time?

>>14774096
>What's the mathematical logic to solve this?

t. the bot I wrote for >>14774789 which seems to be able to make any possible deduction (haven't tried to prove it though):

Squares fall into three categories
- unrevealed squares
- revealed squares that are blank or have all their bombs marked
- revealed squares with bombs still left to find
Loop over all pairs of squares in the third set that have intersecting neighborhoods. For each pair let

n1, n2 = the number of unlocated bombs adjacent to each
C = the set of unrevealed squares adjacent to both
A1,A2 = the set of unrevealed squares adjacent to the first (resp second) but not the second (resp first)
n(S) = for any set S of unrevealed squares the number of bombs in it

then

n1-|A1| <= n(C) <= n1
n2-|A2| <= n(C) <= n2
0 <= n(C) <= |C|

so

(*) max(n1-|A1|, n2-|A2|, 0) <= n(C) <= min(n1, n2, |C|)

Next since n(A1) = n1 - n(C):

n1 - min(n1, n2, |C|) <= n(A1) <= n1-max(n1-|A1|, n2-|A2|, 0)
(**) max(0, n1-n2, n1-|C|) <= n(A1) <= min(|A1|, n1-n2+|A2|, n1)

similarly

(***) max(0, n2-n1, n2-|C|) <= n(A2) <= min(|A2|, n2-n1+|A1|, n2)

For each inequality (*), (**), and (***) if the lower bound is zero then clear all squares in C, A1, A2 respectively, and if the upper bound is = |C|, |A1|, or |A2| respectively then flag them all. Otherwise continue to the next pair. After looping over all pairs rescan the board and repeat until the game's over or you're stuck.

>>11798997
I was going to tell you you're retarded but halfway through I realized you're right. Based anon.

>>10916522
Everyone here's retarded, OP. What you're talking about is correct, and old news. Psychopathy is like reverse-autism. Autists are overwhelmed by small amounts of stimulation. Psychopaths act out for lack of response to normal amounts of stimulation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5429591/
>One underlying aspect that has been hypothesized to be related to psychopathic traits is aberrant or blunted stress reactivity (Liken, 1995; Patrick et al., 1993). Stress reactivity is a risk factor involved in fear conditioning (e.g., response to distress/punishment cues) and the socialization of conscience.
>Previous research has demonstrated psychopathic personality traits are significantly predictive of blunted cortisol reactivity to a performance-based stressor task (Trier Social Stress Test; TSST) in college students.
>The current study tested the hypotheses that both psychopathic personality traits and amount of time incarcerated are related to cortisol blunting in response to stress among incarcerated young adults.
>Hierarchical linear modeling revealed that time incarcerated and number of commitments were related to a blunted cortisol response among responders and declining cortisol reactivity among nonresponders, respectively. Controlling for time incarcerated, psychopathic traits were significantly related to cortisol decline in response to the stressor among nonresponders, but were not related to blunted cortisol among responders.

Why are NAND-NAND implementations of a Sum-of-product expression preferred over an AND-OR implementation?

I'm not trying to be a theoretical faggot, my professor is asking this on his study guide and I legitimately have no idea why it would be preferred.

>>10799057
>Because "weight" means fucking nothing.
You said you can't lose weight on a twinkie diet. Now you're claiming weight isn't even what you're talking about. Clear the fat out of your brain and pick one.

>>10782162
>He was a militant empiricist and materialist that used to shit on me for loving math so much
>numbers not empirical

Explain

Unless it involves getting into if math is discovered or created and subjectivity of semiotics and all that bullcrap

Basically, it's an augmentation that could prevent the brain from sloshing around violently in the skull, thereby eliminating concussions. Remove the patients the top part of the patients skull and attach little peices of cartilage in the shape of a thin string to the skull. Once the top of the skull is put back, the cartilage will begin to attach itself to the brain in various areas. This would basically suspend the brain inside your skill in a still manner. Any shaking of the skull would not cause damage to the brain because it is suspended indefinitely by the cartilage that is attached to the inside part of the skull. Is this plausible or am I a brainlet?

If an anon commits suicide, how long will it take for the body to start decomposing(to the point you can smell from outside)? What's causes such a strong smell? Does smelling that smell mean you dead people particles in your nose?

>>10756360
I'm a graduate student in physics whose shitposting on a somalian basket weaving forum, why do you assume so much about my life?

>>10737745
>The brain can perform NP tasks in P time???!!!?
>Human brains farms instead of computers, when?
It's a somewhat misleading / disingenuous Penrose type argument that our brains can solve computationally intensive classes of problems instantly in a way that transcends machine solutions. For one thing the way *you* formulate the question when you work on it isn't necessarily going to be the NP-hard formulation the machine is working with. You might use extra context / memorized trivia. You might have a very good approximation rather than a literal NP-hsrd calculation that led to your answer. And your approach might work for one trick example someone like Penrose concocts (e.g. that "human easy /machine difficult" chess problem he came up with a year or so back) but quickly falls apart when expanded to the rest of the problem class or even just scaled up with larger parameters.
What I would never do is conclude based on any of this that it's evidence for some quantum flapdoodle process in the brain. Much more boring and mundane explanations available than that.

If I was born in the year 1991 and not 2001 would I be living in 2019 or 2009?

>thence

what is the most interesting number between 1 and 2 million and why?

>>10015693
>My current understanding or view is, that the maths/the ideas of "AI" (e.g. neural networks) were found long ago, but just recently computers got powerful enough + huge amounts of data are available so that these old ideas now began to work.
That's exactly it. Most news we here to day regarding AI are mainly engineering achievements. Not scientific milestones.

>>9993174
Not sure what you were attempting here, but all you did was explain how rudimentary your thought process is, giving the NPC narrative even more affirmation.

Are there any good books on epidemics and pandemics? Disease control?

>>9952138
It's hard to explain (that's why I'm not going to try), rolling 4 dices will look like this:
1-(9/10)^3 + (1-(8/9)^2) + (1-(7/8)^1)
Most likely not the most efficient method, but works, calculates how likely getting atleast one pair

Has the order of numbers been scientifically proven? Who exactly decided the correct order of numbers? Is the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 foundation of mathematics scientifically incorrect? How would science change if this was proven? If three was the fifth number (ex.) 1 2 5 4 3 6 7 8 9 would this change scientifically?

>has become like the west, where corruption doesn't exist

/pol/acks believe their questionable statistics and outdated/debunked theories from one or two centuries ago are science so they come here because they think they belong.

The actual question is why actual /sci/ posters ever reply and therefore bump /pol/ threads, when we could just let them die.