/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5768492
I really should of posted this pic.

>Somehow I used the word mathematical
>Now it feels legit in this board

I just got waitlisted at Caltech.

How likely is it that I'll be accepted, and how likely is it that I'll get into MIT?

Is there any non-relative way to talk about numbers?
What I mean is that the value of a number is always tied to its base, and yet numbers from different bases have inherent differences in value.
Can you compare and manipulate numbers from different bases (e.g. multiply a number in base 2 by a number in base 4 or say that a number in base 3 is less than or greater than a number in base 5) without first converting to a common base?

Isn't Graham's Number the largest?

>>3934618

chaos theory, simple stuff. i thought that shit was balls awesome when i was 14. dont know about age but as long as you dont get too technical he should enjoy it and understand it. stuff like the mendelbrot set and the graphe (it has a name). lorenz attractors are cool too.

I agree. I think it's absurd.

Fractals.

Science or Irrelevant?

American system vs Metric system.
any opinions?

Western science has been remarkably successful in explaining the world around us, but it hasn't given us meaning. The world it describes is a dry material world without any real purpose. Science has also given us an abundance of technologies which we've used to satisfy many of our needs and desires but Again, it hasn't given us values. It doesn't tell us the best way to use this incredible knowledge and power. It also hasn't really helped us develop unity. If anything it's reinforced our sense of self-centeredness. We're probably more full of ourselves than we've ever been. I think what we need today is an integration of our scientific understanding of the world with the wisdom that's held in the worlds spiritual traditions.

Here's a fractal

Is the contained extraction of free energy from quantum vacuum fluctuations plausible?

Pic unrelated

And of course there are amazing math gifs.

Economists of /sci/

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/the-bigger-the-group-the-less-likely-pareto-improve
ments/

Jist: Pareto optimality is only practical with small numbers. If the two of us benefit from one thing, then likely some other player does not.

Do you personally believe that when we add more people, someone has to lose?

Pic related: infinite paradox

what does /sci/ think of this vidya?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8Aurpr68uE&feature=player_embedded#!

bump be back in 20

am I doin it rite?

Hey /sci/. Teach me all you know about metaphysics. I happen to believe that the key to reaching the next level of understanding of the primal functions of the human brain is metaphysics.

inb4- herp derp it's all theory. I could care less. Theory is fascinating and anyone who discourages theory discourages knowledge. Anyone who discourages knowledge, well... belongs on /b/.

Sup /b/ I understand the inner workings of the brains inside of the people of normal society and can relate them to a neuroscientific form of explanation of astounding insight. However I'm on drugs and can't be arsed to do that at this moment so I hope you may understand. I'll be sure to post when I have the time so I just thought I'd let you know. Thanks