/sci/ - Science & Math

>more atheistic boards
it's the most virgin board

>>14541743
this too. pic related

> The Earth is round.
> The Moon landings happened and space travel is real.
> Newtonian Mechanics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> Quantum Mechanics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> Special and General Relativity are accurate and incomplete descriptions of reality.
> The Standard Model of particle physics is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> The Lambda-CDM model is an accurate and incomplete description of reality.
> Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
> Perpetuum mobiles, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
> Likewise, it is impossible to extract work from the zero-point energy of the vacuum.
> More generally, if you disagree with thermodynamics, you are wrong.
> Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
> Approved vaccines are effective and much safer than the diseases they prevent.
> "I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. The fact that the universe is not simple enough for you to understand is your failing, not the universe's.
> Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give accurate answers and be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform the current theory.

For those who will start arguing about "accurate and incomplete":
"Accurate": Models built from the theory accurately predict the outcomes of experiments and do not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity, which is large enough to be useful.
"Incomplete": The theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe.

If you want to argue this, first read > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

>>10668314

>>10617055

>GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE! IT IS A MANIFESTATION OF CURVED SPACE TIME!

>b-but to solve this problem just treat it like a newtonian force xD.

>What? Physics is not inconsistent! hehe...

WebMD says:

"Plus, you don't need to detox your body -- your liver takes care of that."

http://www.m.webmd.com/diet/a-z/lemonade-master-cleanse-diet

As a chemical engineer, I would think the concept of residence time plays a role here.

>Don't worry about consuming too much alcohol and hurting your liver. Your liver takes care of detoxing the alcohol from your system for you. Drink up!

>inb4, detoxing is pointless.

My rebuttal to that is that it is healthy every once in a while to give your body a break from all the shit you put in it. Lots of studies show fasting has huge benefits.

>>7134589
No, I refuse to leave.
I will be the voice of reason.
I will enlightening my fellow humans by correctly answering every question I can and politely pointing out every mistake I find so that is stops here.

/sci/ will be great again!

And people will start post images, after that is what you do on an image board.

So which one is "the best" Java, Python, C*insert rest* or something else?

>>6918774
Neither do I, but he was probably ironically implying that scientific experiments could lead to random results. Or maybe he just misused the word arbitrary. Either way that's why I'm here for. >>6918679

/sci/

Want your opinion on something. I'm studying economics at a top five school in the US. I have a ton of options open to me in terms of banking, consulting, etc. But they don't interest me at all. I want to go into teaching, specifically in urban schools.

I feel, weird. Going into something with low pay and low prestige with all of these other incredible opportunities out there for me. I know this is completely based in emotion, but I'm worried people are going to think less of me for doing it. Has anyone else done something similar? What happened?

>>6598479
calm down, dude. it's just the internet.

/pol/ is right there, so it's very possible that this is what op actually believes.

for the rest, see pic related. They believe it's something commendable to, since they feel like they're teachers of science.

(wait, does saging with a pic work anymore? meh, active thread, nevermind)

>>5750431
Because duty calls. Someone posted something which IMHO can very easily lead to a gross misunderstanding of basic calc.
0.999... is well defined because it is a commonly used shorthand notation that is trivially mappable to a decimal expansion.
0.00...001 is a bullshit notation because no one uses it, and it has no mapping to a decimal expansion.

>>5628834
music is probably too complicated a phenomena to be explained by evolution alone, or by any one cause, for that case
the fact that we have a simple name for it doesn't make it a simple phenomena

>>5628911
>>5628942
you clearly are not musicians and are thinking of only one or a few kinds of music

TL;DR: debates with anonymous strangers about controversial topics are a form of negative wire-heading.

In psychology, wire-heading is the stimulation of emotive responses that evolved for a different reason. The name came from the literal wire-heading of rats who proceeded to self-stimulate electrically. Now, it is often used as a metaphor for any artificial stimulus that engages one's emotion without serving the original evolutionary purpose.

Examples of this are watching movies, playing video games having sex with contraception, reading novels, eating tasty food with low nutritional value etc.

Some of these have social and epistemic functions, but that's usually not what they are for.

My hypothesis now is that debating controversial topics with anonymous strangers is a form of such wire-heading, except that it usually causes more negative than positive emotions: People compete with total strangers over local social status and intellectual superiority, even if they never know each other's identity, live on different continents, will never compete for mates or resources and will never even meet.

Usually, these debates don't end with one side changing their mind. They have *some* epistemic value, but not nearly as much as the time spent on them or the negative emotions caused by them are usually worth.

>>5495931
just give up, you lost

>>5482148

were you born a pretensious faggot, or did you train your whole life to attain your level of pretensious faggotry?

>implying you know anything at all about quantum mechanics, or biology, or "how to not seem like a pretensious faggot when posting on the internet"

>>5482076

u mad?

>>5232765
Fine, consider a scheme were where the message space M is all n-bit messages, let N=2^n, and the key space K be all random n-bit numbers. Or even more generally for <span class="math">ANY[/spoiler] kind of set of messages M, set N=|M| and enumerate the elements from 1 to N. Then replace the message with it's index in the following.

Then encrypt messages ∀m∈M,∀k∈K, c:=m+k mod N. Since modulo addition forms a group, there is an unique positive integer, denoted -k, such that k+(-k) mod N =0 so decrypt that c and k and computes c+(-k)=m+k+(-k)=m mod N. Clearly decrypt is correct. To show its perfectly secure, it enough to show Pr[C=c|M=m0]=Pr[C=c|M=m1] with k picked uniformly from K and ∀m0,m1∈M,∀c∈C.
with some arithmetic:
Pr[C=c|M=m0]
=
Pr[M+K mod N=c|M=m0]
Pr[m0+K mod N=c]
Pr[c-m0 mod N=K] by its group properties
Pr[k=K]=1/N which is independent of m0 so
Pr[C=c|M=m0]=Pr[C=c|M=m1]
Thus, this scheme I COMPLETELY pulled out of my ass is perfectly secure and completely different from the OPT.

>>4714490
I copied the code from the OP, deal with it.

>>4339311
Is so

>>4249626
Post anything.

Every moment I spend on 4chan (especially the other boards), I have this feeling.

>ITT that feel

>>4230741
>>4230738
>>4230737
Guys, guys. Much simpler explanation. Pic related.