/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14541981
>first positive phase that returns a complex exponential to the real axis
or
>first positive phase that returns a complex exponential to unity

which is superior?

>>11793950
>Give the masses everything they wanted and more
>Let a small group of people in control also get whatever they want
>Brave New World done better
Seriously, what's so bad about this?

Why are there no stars?

If you're so poor, how are you so smart?

>>11281474
I lied, I'll take a few shots at the qualia thing because I feel like slacking off work.

>Qualia ("quale" in singular) are those aspects of our experience that cannot be communicated yet we know they are there.
Cannot be communicated using current technology.

>Suppose you and I look at a rose. Having verified that our color vision and linguistic abilities are normal, we assure each other that we both see a red rose. Still, you cannot rule out the possibility that I experience red the way you experience blue. True, in all languages each of us would name all colors the same way as the other. But this only means that we both have correctly learned to associate the appropriate word to the wavelength in question. Nothing of all that can tell you anything about my quale of the color. This is the notorious "inverted qualia problem."
By assuming that the brain processes of "you" and "I" are identical, yet asserting that "you cannot rule out the possibility that I experience red the way you experience blue", the writer is already assuming a dualistic reality, right from step one. The point of "physicalism" as he calls it is that yes, you CAN rule out that possibility, with sufficient technology/physical evidence.

>The same holds for all other percepts of sound, smell, etc. The percept itself can be accurately communicated, but the accompanying quale remains inaccessible.
Again, inaccessible under current technology.

>>11262666
>audiophiles

>>11258390
What?

>>11179716
>somehow almost everyone gets laid

>>11175596
...
Math!: Encounters with High School Students (1985)
Riemann-Roch Algebra (1985) with William Fulton
Introduction To Complex Hyperbolic Spaces (1987)[23]
Geometry (1988)
Introduction to Arakelov Theory (1988)[24]
Cyclotomic Fields II (1989)
Undergraduate Algebra (1990)
Real and Functional Analysis (1993)
Differential and Riemannian Manifolds (1995)
Basic Analysis of Regularized Series and Products (1993) with Jay Jorgenson
Challenges (1997)
Survey On Diophantine Geometry (1997)
Fundamentals of Differential Geometry (1999)
Math Talks for Undergraduates (1999)
Problems and Solutions for Complex Analysis (1999) with Rami Shakarchi
Collected Papers I: 1952–1970 (2000)
Collected Papers II: 1971–1977 (2000)
Collected Papers III: 1978–1990 (2000)
Collected Papers IV: 1990–1996 (2000)
Collected Papers V: 1993–1999 (Springer, 2000) ISBN 978-0387950303
Spherical Inversion on SLn(R) (2001) with Jay Jorgenson[25]
Posn(R) and Eisenstein Series (2005) with Jay Jorgenson
The Heat Kernel and Theta Inversion on SL2(C) (2008) with Jay Jorgenson
Heat Eisenstein series on SLn(C) (2009) with Jay Jorgenson

What the fuck was he made of?

>>11168375
So how do I destroy that bussy without derivatives my oniigga-chan?

>>11066174
When did /x/ invade this shithole?

>>11062651
?

>In loving memory of Yukariposter, 19XX - 2019.
What did they mean by this?

Let GCH stand for the generalized continuum hypothesis.
In ZFC, is the proposition "GCH or not GCH" true? GCH is independent of ZFC, so intuitively it's neither true nor false. But wouldn't the proposition being false contradict LEM?

>>11002920
>Coomer
A what now?

>>9601863
Please, tell me this is not serious.

>>9522987
>>9522996

Why leftists hate science so much?