/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11809683
>>11809227

Ah okay thanks for the explanation, So this entire time by using y and x of the peak I was not finding the B required for the wave that would traverse both valleys and peak, I was only finding a parabola that would traverse the peak when n is natural.

Similar to trying to find the shape of a parabola using the standard equation y = ax^2 + bx + c would get me nowhere if I was missing a value for variable "a", "b", or "c".

So to truly find the variable "B" and by extension shape of a sine wave that takes one whole period to get from point (-5000, 24000) and point (70000, 24000) and peaks at point (32500, 32000) I would need some alternate equation that uses the peak and the valleys like the vertex equation or the intercept equation for parabolas.

Is there any equation like this? Where "A", "C" and "D" are dropped in favour of the peak or the valleys and "B", y, and x are included?

Or forget "B" entirely is there any way to graph a wave with 3 key points (valley 1, peak, valley 2), I sense that there should be but I am new to trig and have not heard of any.

>>10881290
I really appreciate your neural network argument. You still have to consider the layers in which the network determines which neuron to feed, and the different outcomes are due to probability which is why I mention the importance of uncertainty and statistics in my previous post. The modelling and activation methods are based on mathematical models, which still lean more towards determinism more so than free will (being that it obeys a set of equations and does not act on its own but I digress). I think instead of viewing something living as an "object", which then implies the absence of consciousness, I think you would agree that it would be moreso making a mathematical model (function) for the physical system or agent at hand. This is what I mean when I bring up the statistics jazz, and I'm sure this is what you mean too.

Of course, scale this up to universal size and you get a clusterfuck so convoluted it only seems natural for free will to exist, as tracking all the external factors (and other things) influencing an agent turns into a practically impossible task; however, one should theoretically still be able to predict an agent's "decision" granted they have enough relevant data, as previously discussed.

>>10880474
This is the case for current technology. Imagine whenever we get room temperature superconductors with heat-free processors and IC boards. Plus, you can have a cluster of these really slick computers running the neural networks in parallel and it will absolutely spank the shit out of the brain's performance. Of course, this is if we cannot create an artificial brain: if you're talking about an artificial brain, then yeah that would be the fastest way to compute shit.