/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10782295
Is the interpretation valid? Obviously yes, if it was invalid then it would have no serious subscribers? Is it correct? Maybe, I don't know. Even if there are many worlds, there could be superposition effects among them attenuating the "infinite possibilities" properties of the MWI.

I prefer to thing of "many worlds" in terms of a mathematical potential:
F = - ∇Φ

In electromagnetism, nobody says, "This math says there is a real physical universe somewhere where the gradient of the landscape is the opposite of our electric field." That would be retarded, but actually it is a perfectly valid interpretation. Same thing with the math that suggests many worlds: it's better just to think of it as a potential. There could be many worlds, and I don't doubt it, but I am prone to the opinion that superposition effects would generate a preferred timeline. Everything quantum has superposition effects. However, there could be fibers and wisps and little loops, and even big loops, and all of that kind of stuff. For me, I am content to interpret the math which suggests such things as a mathematical potential.

>>9891218
thanks

I'm trying to figure out the multiplication algorithm for multivariate polynomials over Z_2, i.e. everythig modulo 2.

The interesting thing here is that for n>0, we have that [math] X^n = X[/math].

For one indeterminant X, this leads to

[math] (a + b · X) · (A + B · X) = (a * A) + (a * B + b * A + b * B) · X [/math]

where a,b,A,B are each either 0 or 1 both coefficients
[math] a + b [/math]
and
[math] a * B + b * A + b * B [/math]
are computed modulo 2.

This can all be expressed in terms of exponent vectors, i.e. we don't need X. So

[math] <a, b> · <A, B> = <a * A, a * B + b * A + b * B >[/math]

Now with two indeterminates, X and Y, we have polynomials with 4 coefficients, e.g.

[math] a + b · X + c · Y + d· X · Y[/math]

and so...

[math] <a, b, c, d> · <A, B, C, D> = ...[/math]

Where all vectors have components only 0's and 1's.

I'm trying to find out the multiplication algorithm for any dimension..

Probably two solid theoretical physics books.

In German I'm more of a fan of Nolting, but you can't really go wrong. That being said, I doubt you'll end up extensively reading either of those books.
If you do, come back to /sci/ and make good thread about those topics.

>>9569213
I don't really know him. Just like Helene was always saying, "What if I was really a spy" whenever Joe saw a problem he would say, "Just drill one little hole in his head."
>I don't know Joe well
>I do know Helene VERY WELL
I tried to visit Joe a few times recently. He had a body double fill in for him, that can't bode well for him or his people. Also, Joe's google+ avatar is not the Joe I know. That's some shoop chimera designed to obfuscate between him and his body doubles. Also, Joe used to take us to summer vacation in Durango, CO which is very near Dulce Base, NM where they have the underground reptiles

cont. 3

For people going into it, it's valuable to understand that there are currencies, assets/tokens and shares being traded at the same time now. It's not all the same, but they are interchangable on the exchangers.

Going on, despite blockchain protocols and smart contracts having a clear usecase, the whole scene is completely overvalued. Essentially, you could take all coins' and tokens values and divide it by 20 or some factor, and you'd still get a sensible valuation.

You see it with actual products like Steem or Status Network Token. I think the former (it's somewhat like reddit, but with bandwidth limitation for their users and no ads, and decentralized of course) has about 100.000 users now, and as such it's in the sense the most successful blockchain application. Compare this with any of the currencies (Bitcoin, Dash, etc.). Those are traded far more than anything else. Hardly anyone exchanges money person to person (I talked about this above). But the value of the steem currency is comparatively low! Same with Status Network, which is a chat client with an alpha version out, where you can trade stuff and use a token for ads.
The things that are more or less completed have a reasonably low evaluation, and I think that's a reflection of the true value, and the vast overvaluedness of the other coins. That's my theory at least.

Nonetheless, unless there are regulations of the govs in the West, in the next 2 years more people will get into it, pour money in, and it's trivial to make money off of it.

So again, if you're interested in writing math for the bot, of if you're interested in C# or Python developement with the blockchain, give me a headsup. The latter is just a datastream of hashes now, but soon we'll be able to port Smart Contracts on the nextwork (issue token, make banking apps, automated transfers, think business employer situations or pokemoney distribution).

Guys evolution is just a theory ok? Ok you guys?

>>8940427
>>8940522
There. Because of people like this.
Almost everyone thinks they must be smart and a good thinker by default, then life teaches them they are not, and they fall hard into denial and "alternative facts" to compensate.
Because if you contradict "established facts", you must be just as smart as '''mainstream science'''. Right?
So.. ego basicly.

Can the a-family of exponential functions

[math] x\mapsto a^x [math]

by characterized by the functional equation

[math] \forall x. \ \ f(x)^2 = f(2x) [/math]

I think w.l.o.g. I can set [math] f(x) = e^{g(x)}[/math] and then

[math] \forall x. \ \ e^{2\cdot{}g(x)} = e^{g(2x)} [/math]

and I assume only
[math] g(x) = k\cdot{}x [/math]
is left.

But I'm not sure I left out some opaque exceptions

>>8831503
guy you are replying to makes no sense whatsoever, but you are arguing from lack of information, twice

first part: "haven't found a perfect explanation yet" doesn't mean "obviously can't ever be found in principle"; lack of information doesn't allow any certain conclusions either way here, just speculation

second: some parts that are meant to change do indeed change, but noone has yet disabled conciousness in a functioning brain to see what such a state looks like, you again go from lack of information to some conclusion

noone knows yet how conciousness arises exactly, anyone who claims certainty here is just speculating out loud