/sci/ - Science & Math

Is sexual arousal without further ejaculation leads to physical illness? Serious question.

>>12533983
>Moreover, unlike constructivists like brouwer and bishop, linear logicians are less interested in formalizing mathematics in linear logic and uncovering newfound meaning for old constructions, as well as new constructions and mathematical modes of thought, and more interested about toy models and minute changes in the rules of the logic.
Do you judge that as good or bad?

I'd also proactively call Brouwer an intuitionist. I feel a lot of the CS constructivists don't reject non-constructive math, rather they want the space to adopt ALL THE axioms when they want to

question i work a 35 hour dead end
job where im walking 8 hrs a day,,
if i want to drink no more than 2-3 alcohol beverage units to de-stress myself,
what time of day is best to drink them?
should i space them out? thanks

getget
>>10690000

Are there any people here familiar with the current science surrounding autism?

My niece was diagnosed with it and I feel like shit.

All I'm doing is looking around for possible treatments and I know it's a fool's game but I'm desperate for some hope. Are treatments like gut bacteria actually something promising? Every few years you hear about some new drug being a possible treatment for autism but it never actually happens. And clinical trials take years to go through and I'm not even in America so it'll take even longer, I'm guessing, to be available in Canada.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/12/08/gut-bacteria-may-offer-a-treatment-for-autism

How are you going to deal with the fact that there is at least a billion people smarter than you?

A mobster threatens you: Give me fifty dollars or I'll slash your tires. You think back to your mathematics class and reason as follows.

Either the mobster slashes my tires or he doesn't. (Tertium non datur)
If Mobster slashes my tires, it's better not to give him fifty dollars.
If Mobster doesn't slash my tires, it's better not to give him fifty dollars.
Hence: It's better not to give Mobster fifty dollars. (Disjunction Elimination)

So you don't give him the money and he slashes your tires. You really should have paid him.

>>9550670
Mathematicians are like that annoying kid who always made up these fantastic counterfactuals.

You can't subtract three from two
>YABBUT WHAT IF YOU COULD
You can't take the square root of two
>YABBUT WHAT IF YOU COULD
You can't take the square root of a negative number
>YABBUT WHAT IF YOU COULD
There's no number greater than zero but smaller than every reciprocal of naturals.
>YABBUT WHAT IF THERE WAS

Feel like a brainlet everytime I visit /sci/. Any thread I visit has some genius or someone who goes to a top ten uni and 'hurr durr everyone is as smart as I am" or "MUH MATHS ". I feel so inferior.

What do /sci/?

Daily reminder that ELF to upper microwave band radiation interacts with the voltage sensing sub-unit of voltage gated calcium channels, leading to chronically elevated intracelluar calcium, overactivity of Ca2+ regulated machinery and processes, and ultimately increased NO synthesis that cannot be properly processed through standard channels and thus in the presence of superoxide forms peroxynitrite. Ignoring the high level signalling and regulatory functions of VGCCs (such as neurotransmitter release in the CNS, as well as synapse and dendritic spine maintenance / formation), this is the low level mechanism leading to oxidative and nitrosative stress, and subsequent DNA damage and deleterious effects on other cellular structures. This entire chain of effects is completely eliminated by VGCC blockers both in cultured cell lines, and in vivo. The influx of extracellular calcium is also immediate upon exposure, <5s, further suggesting that microwaves are indeed acting on the charge groups comprising the VGCC's voltage sensor. Given their location in the plasma membrane and what we know about the physics of pulsed fields, this is the most plausible.

In summary, Wi-Fi and cellular phones are making you infertile and raising the probability of issues in your offspring, raising your risk of various cancers, giving rise to widespread psychiatric issues, and bluntly giving you brain damage outright. Rates of autism will continue to rise along with spontaneous abortion and other causes of infant mortality, and complex society will likely crumble as people succumb to early onset Alzheimer and dementia. What follows is an inability to naturally produce viable offspring. Say nothing of broader ecological collapse from the death of other organisms.

Have fun. This is the future we chose.

Why is the classical model of light polarization considered "classical."

It seems completely analogous to any two-state quantum system.

Do you guys know what you'd call an operon that only has one gene? Wiki says operon is a gene cluster, but what is it called when there's just a regulator-repressor system and a single gene?

So I bought 4 grams for 50$, how much should I pay for 30$?

>need to do experiment over the weekend
>forgot to prepare and sterilize my aliquot of EDTA
>no autoclave service over the weekend
Can I sterilize it in a UV lamp or will that destroy the EDTA? Halp, I'm not a chemist I'm a bio brainlet!

Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.

Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.

Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.

People hate losing money about twice as much as they love making it: It takes a $20 discount, researchers have found, to make up for the sting of a $10 surcharge on a purchase. That is one reason why even experienced stockbrokers often sell stocks while they are still increasing in value, leaving money on the table rather than risking a loss. Prospect theory’s central formula lays out how we go with our gut when determining the value (V) of a possible outcome (x) with a given probability (p). It takes into account many of people’s most predictable—and, at times, peculiar—financial irrationalities: shying away from losses, for instance, and overestimating tiny probabilities like the 1-in-10-million chance of winning the lottery.

How do we fight unreasonable skepticism of the scientific establishment?

It seems back in the day, when space rockets, aerosol cans, and microwave ovens were still a novelty, people thought science was pretty cool. Sure, lots of people were paranoid about fluoridation and atomic energy, but they didn't really give a shit about the other stuff. Nowadays, something like one third of all Americans gets an undergrad degree, and it is easier than ever to learn science on the internet so if anything we have more firsthand and secondhand exposure to scientists and the scientific method, and yet it seems distrust of science has gone up. I can't think of one discipline that doesn't have some retarded kook theory surrounding it:

>microbiology: AIDS created by the government / vaccines cause autism
>Biology: evolution was deliberately made up to mislead people and is basically a religious dogma instead of a simple fact that people accept based on the evidence
>Astronomy: NASA hides evidence of flat earth
>physics: the electric universe theory is suppressed by physicists because the establishment hates Tesla or something
>chemistry/biochem: big pharma is tricking us into buying cancer medicine when really you can cure cancer with lemon juice/ bleach enemas/Windex
>math: I dunno, I'm sure there's something, or if there isn't you can check back in five years and there will be

What the fuck happened? Did the lowered cost of circulating information somehow tip the balance in favor of retards, or is there more to it than that? Can this be stopped?

I should mention that I am also against unconditional/excessive/naive support of the scientific establishment, but that's a whole other animal.

Has anyone here made their own glycerol-based mounting media? It needs to be GFP-compatible. Pic tangentially related.

Is chemistry the easiest subject from the hard sciences?

Basically, I've been sick the last few weeks and failed to get a medical certificate so my teacher now thinks I'm a lazy piece of shit who just didn't do their work. I've got about 3 hours to have it complete and very limited knowledge of the course material. It's a psychology assignment and my task is to write up an investigation folio which is around 2000 words. Basically, if anyone is willing to have this done in the next 2 - 3 hours there will be money in it for you.

https://medium.com/@doncwrites/deconstructing-the-idea-of-biological-gender-c95f66a37e68#.p6tmey5v8

Sex is a social construct. Biologists BTFO

hey /sci/ I know this probably doesn't belong here but i have to take my GED in 4 days I'm not worried about any subject besides Math. do any of you guys have tips for studying for the GED?

in an equation where x(t) =k and were looking for k with the given equation 6t^5(dx/dt) +7x-7=0

how would you go about it?

Does /sci/ have any textbook recommendations for an intro to Linear Algebra or Analytic Geometry? Thanks.