/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10662039
>if you don't swallow what you've been told to think at face value, you're crazy
Remember when the US government tortured its own citizens with surreptitious administration of drugs and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, and verbal and sexual abuse, including the sexual abuse of children, for the purpose of weaponizing mind control? Remember when they openly admitted to this and no one cares to this day? Imagine putting anything past soulless bureaucrats with unlimited power. Imagine looking down upon people for, incorrect or not, actually thinking for themselves instead of being a drooling NPC like you.

Ce^(a+bi) should give all complex numbers. I just can't fucking prove it yet. Any ideas, friends?

Hello! I am back, and not so sober, but let's fucking do it. Tear this apart. It implies two geometrically identical objects are geometrically distinct due to their creation.
https://i.imgur.com/GKjoYAO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/k03eQfv.jpg

We want the people who study this to die early deaths. It isn't tragic. We're organic.

Hey Friends! There is a lot of IQ and SAT/GRE discussion on this site and we always talk about why those tests work or don't work. Let's design our own tests that are better! We don't have to create them, only outline what they should look like. We all want tests that actually work (place students at schools they should go to). This means we have to eliminate cheating and make the tests more predictive.

Here are my ideas so far:

1. We need a normie test and a brainlet test. The SAT was first designed when college was really for the top 10% of the population. Today, wrongly, more the half of people go to college. While the SAT has changed a lot, it has basically become a timed test with extremely straight forward questions. This is because administrative assistants go to college. Having the same test for everyone is basically stupid.

I thiink it is because we challange assumptions and push boundries

>>9506948
youtried.jpg
[eqn]
-\frac{1}{a} \begin{vmatrix}
c & b & 0\\
b & 2a & b\\
a & 0 & 2a
\end{vmatrix}
[/eqn]

>>9412991

>making it

I have serious doubts about current AI tech. This has played before literally four times, that I can count, and it was always bullshit. AI is an asset bubble.

Hello Friends,

I am spreading the word about a fantastic Game Theory model I created to solve issues surrounding ICOs (initial coin offerings). This model could work for IPOs (initial public offerings) as well, but stocks are about ten years removed from moving to blockchain technology (it is only a matter of time).

Here are two articles that define the model and show its real world use:

https://steemit.com/ico/@roosterred/a-fair-ico-model-roosterred-s-uncapped-blind-ico-auctions

https://steemit.com/whitepaper/@roosterred/whitepaper-examples-of-uncapped-blind-ico-auctions

If you are a game theory nerd like myself, please read and critique my model. If you just find it interesting, please spread it to academics and professionals that are into game theory.

It really is an incredible model. I am not lying. My everyday writing style almost hides its strength. It is cleaner than most text book examples of game theory, all while being more complex and perfectly targeting a real world problem.

I am not an academic (yet). I am just a guy who hit hard times (really hard) and is trying to make it.

Thank you friends. We will all make it. I promise you. I will drag several of you along on my journey.

Your Friend,
RoosterRed

Are op amps even still used? I thought it was just something the crusty old professor that taught at my community college electronics course was going over because he was outdated and stuck in the 70s.

Hello Friends,

I have been trying to develop an ICO (initial coin offering) system that is fair to all parties. The current ICO landscape is far from this. I believe that Uncapped Blind ICO Auctions can change the world for the better. If we want better financial systems, we have to design them both from the ground up and the top down to incentivize the behaviors we want. I am becoming more and more convinced that this model not only works, but has more benefits than I initially imagined.

Here is my current proposal (it has changed a lot even in a week):
https://steemit.com/ico/@roosterred/a-fair-ico-model-roosterred-s-uncapped-blind-ico-auctions

For those of you who know about ICOs, I have prepared three whitepaper examples:
https://steemit.com/whitepaper/@roosterred/whitepaper-examples-of-uncapped-blind-ico-auctions

I have never seen this set up, but the benefit of blind auctions are well known in economics and game theory.

The idea is that everyone tends to win. All participants are happy with the final ICO price. The company gets to maximize the funds it raises. And even traders tend to win, as post-ICO bumps in value often happen (but not always, which is key).

I am honestly a brainlet compared to many of you. If you like what you see, spread it, especially to academics or professionals who know game theory.

Your Friend,
RoosterRed

https://steemit.com/ico/@roosterred/a-fair-ico-model-roosterred-s-uncapped-blind-ico-auctions

Snippet:

"In my Uncapped Blind ICO Auction model there is no set amount of money that an ICO can raise. There is no set amount of participants either. Everyone that wants to participate can participate, and the company raises the maximum amount of money it can.

A company will thoroughly outline its ICO. Participants in the ICO bid two numbers: The amount of money they are offering in the ICO, and the highest market cap they will tolerate. Participants are ranked first by market cap and then randomly (with those of the same bid). Participants cannot see each other’s bids. A Smart Contract collects all the funds and finds the maximum market cap that can be funded with the bids. Participants who were priced out or positioned out are automatically refunded.

Let’s look at an example. Mark bids twenty thousand dollars at a maximum market cap of three million. Jay bids ten thousand dollars at a maximum market cap of two million dollars. Jerry bids two thousand dollars at a maximum market cap of one million dollars. The Smart Contract calculates that the maximum market cap that can be funded is two million dollars. At that price, there were over two million dollars in funds. Mark gets one percent of all tokens. Jerry is refunded. Even though Jay’s bid was valid and at the market cap, he is refunded as people like Mark were given priority and he was ranked too low amongst those who bid two million. This system incentivizes participants to honestly bid the maximum market cap they will tolerate."

Am I a brainlet, /sci?