/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14587226
>he does not

>if growth is linear/exponential now it will be so forever
that's your brain on regr*ssion ANALysis and st*tistics.

What are some books I can read to make me autistically good at math?

When your IQ is so fucking high, you need to be drunk 9-5 to do your job and interact with normies.

How many successful launches will Starship need to pay off its research and development costs?

lets say hypothetically youre undestructable and floating through space
how mush would be your brain after a million years? could you still have something what most consider as a thought?

>>12453157
That's my armchair assessment of course.

not science. that's sociology, those statistics are sociology, that study is sociology, your whole argument is sociology, all the counter arguments are sociology. just because you brought some numbers and charts doesn't mean it's science.
if you think otherwise, go ahead and find me the monogamy gene/nerve and explain it, i'll wait

>molecular biologist and zoologist talking about psychology and anthropology
why is it so hard for some people to accept quantitative genetics? literally all studies support it.

>oy-ler
>you-klid
>duh-broy

>>11656491
it is spread by Jews

>>11002980
>Spends "100s of hours"
>Has 0 actual evidence to show for it
Pretty fucking brainlet of you to be honest anon.

>>10958544
You should all be forced to take SQL classes.
There's a difference between count(x) and count(distinct x).
Number of sexual partners doesn't mean number of times you had sex. If you have sex with 7 different women and a woman has the same amount of sex but with only 4 distinct men, then your number will be 7 and hers will be 4. This works fine with equal male to female population sizes because the same one guy can be having sex with many different women and this will drive the distinct partner count for women down, a lot like how the number of distinct soda brands out of a random sample of 100,000 soda purchases isn't going to be anywhere near 100,000 because Coca-Cola will be almost all of them.

>>10904271
If you actually believed there were no difference between the concept of a lawn and your own particular lawn then you would have no way of even referring to those two reference points distinctly in the first place like we're clearly doing in having a conversation about them.
This is just lazy sophistry. You keep trying to muddle what physical things are as much as possible so you can try to reaffirm your original mistaken idea that the physical isn't any different from abstract concepts.
At the end of the day you still can mow a lawm and cannot mow the concept of lawns. At best you can say the lawn in question is really made up of tiny little atom-like fundamental physical components. And great if you do, because it's very easy from there to point out concepts don't do that. No matter how many quarks or atoms or molecules you throw together you will never have an abstract concept as the sum of those parts. An abstract concept isn't a thing at all. It's a useful fiction, and it isn't the same as representations of it (this typed number 7 is not the concept of 7) just to head that off before you start pulling that crap again.
I'm just tired at this point. You're really, really dishonest, and not even in entertainingly creative ways.

>>10836842
>It seems very misleading to consider the third door relevant to the choice of staying or switching.
It's extremely relevant because your initial choice is actually a fair, random option of 1 out of 3 equal possibilities.
The remaining door you didn't pick that the host didn't open is NOT a fair, random option of 1 out of 2 equal possibilities because the host will NEVER show you a winning door with a car behind it.
3 possibilities here:
1) Your initial pick was the winner
2) Your initial pick was the first loser door
3) Your initial pick was the second loser door
If 2 OR 3 is true, the host MUST show you the remaining loser door because the other one had the car and it would ruin the game to tell you where the car is.
If 1 is true then the host actually had a choice of showing you either of the two loser doors you didn't initially pick.
If 2 is true and you switch then you win.
If 3 is true and you switch then you win.
If 1 is true and you switch then you lose.

>>10791194
He's wrong and demonstrating why she's the right answer for this thread. She didn't really ever write a program. That's the point.
http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/CBC-Ch-02.pdf
>All but one of the programs cited in her notes had been prepared by Babbage from three to seven years earlier. The exception was prepared by Babbage for her, although she did detect a 'bug' in it. Not only is there no evidence that Ada ever prepared a program for the Analytical Engine, but her correspondence with Babbage shows that she did not have the knowledge to do so.

>>10735187
I like how he keeps on insisting board states aren't reliable to go off of for determining complexity yet somehow the number of distinct pieces is.
>Chess is only 6 pieces, easy problem ;)

>>10716950
>But it wont be absolutely accurate, which the universe seems to be. Does a tree make sound when it falls in the forest and no one observes (not english native, unsure how this saying goes), yes I believe so.
Einstein made almost this same exact complaint though. About our physical reality.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2007/08/16/einstein-an-exchange/
>In the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen thought experiment cited in Smolin’s article it is alleged that measurements can be performed that confer a simultaneous value to these quantities, which is a violation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Hence you cannot both believe in quantum mechanics and that a determination of these quantities, which Einstein would say have a “real existence,” can be made.
>In fact, a quantum mechanician like Bohr would say that, in the absence of an experiment to determine them, these quantities have no existence at all. This is what Einstein objected to. He once walked back from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton with the late Abraham Pais. The moon was out and Einstein asked Pais, “Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?”

>>10701630
No.
Your first statement claims you can't have a system that's more than its parts, which apparently means you believe that's what's required for a system to do what a brain does.
Which immediately leads to the contradiction of the brain either being:
A) A system more than the sum of its parts (something you claimed can't exist) or
B) A system NOT more than the sum of its parts, in which case neither does an artificial system need to be more than the sum of its parts
Or as this anon more succinctly put it:
>>10701446
>>10701401
>You can't have a system greater than the sum of its parts
>>10701413
>Unless it's the brain because brains are magic

>>10665382
>What is the evolutionary purpose of depression, self harm, and suicide?
People who ask these questions have it completely backwards. What you should be asking is "what would be the cost and benefit be of organisms having PERFECT behavior without ever doing anything harmful?" Obviously the cost would be much, much, much greater than the benefit. Evolution is whatever works well enough to exist and persist. It's never perfection. Perfection is a retarded waste of resources just to go from 99% to 100%.

>>10310284


a torus or circle have to have points that have tangent lines for every angle

this shit does not have a point such as a tangent line oriented at 33 degrees is found

and is fintech a good way to make it as a 200k/year chad?

or is getting into a regular tech company better or maybe is biotech the way to go?

Is verbal IQ a meme? I have high verbal IQ and I’m good at writing and reading but math/logic puzzles/patterns are like gookspeak to me. My prof told me language ability and math go together. I’m just low IQ correct?

>>9894051
>>9894062
You're confusing philosophical purpose with practical purpose. Your legs didn't involve with any agency, but they evolved in a way that facilitates walking and running because walking and running are some things that apparently gives you an edge in survival. So by one of the commonly used meanings of the word purpose one is justified in saying that the purpose of legs is enabling walking and running. It's the reason they are there, regardless of whether somebody consciously designed them that way or not.

It would be really nice if people could define the words they're using instead of talking at each other about entirely different things. This is the reason for like 90% of all fundamental disagreements, having different definitions of the same terms in your heads.
>>9894029
Sex and its rewards evolved that way to facilitate reproduction, yes. Masturbation and casual sex is what you would call reward hacking if you were an AI researcher - an agent learning to trigger the reward function directly without actually influencing the external conditions the reward function was "supposed" to facilitate.

It's no different to using drugs, overeating with sugar, watching tv obsessively or shitposting. Sometimes these activites can actually evolve a sort of secondary purpose like the aforementioned bonobos using sex to modulate their social interactions - or humans using alcohol in much the same way - but their origins definitely lie in "misuse" of certain functionalities.