/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm a 1/8 jewish russian, I wonder if they would've given me these. I have a 1/8th jewish cousin but he still has a jewish surname, he'd probably be given these.

>>9523590
Problem 2: F=const.

>>9523590
>This is a special collection of problems that were given to select applicants during oral entrance exams to the math department of Moscow State University. These problems were designed to prevent Jews and other undesirables from getting a passing grade. Among problems that were used by the department to blackball unwanted candidate students, these problems are distinguished by having a simple solution that is difficult to find. Using problems with a simple solution protected the administration from extra complaints and appeals. This collection therefore has mathematical as well as historical value.
Neat.
There was something similar in US history where intentionally difficult (arguably impossible due to ambiguous question wording) literacy tests were selectively given to black people as a requirement to qualify for voting so they could continue the way things were without explicitly having anti- black voting laws.
http://www.openculture.com/2014/07/literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-suppress-the-black-vote.html

>>9523590
KNOW YOUR ROLE, ANON!!!

>>>/pol/

>>9523744
lmao

>>9523750
Read the link, dummy. They're math problems.

>>9523744
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1556

>anti- black voting laws.
But southern rural rednecks retards failed instead.

Black women are better in humanities than White male bigots like you

>>9523590
Problem 9: rectangle, the sum is x*sin(α)+(a-x)*sin(α)=const.

>>9523786
What? There was nothing meaningful to pass or fail, I think you're missing the point that the test was selectively given to black people and was intentionally filled with ambiguous questions with a single wrong answer counting as a disqualification, making it effectively impossible to pass (even if you pick answers that make sense according to one interpretation, the person assessing your test can just choose to go with an alternative interpretation of the ambiguous wording and say you're wrong on that basis).

they tried to BTFO of the [math]\mathcal{PHENOTYPED}[/math] with harder problems...
LOL!

>>9523590
I didn't know the Soviet Union hated Jews especially in the 70s wtf straight outta 30s Nazi Germany

>>9523862
The Soviets caught on eventually, then the Jews and AMERICA became best friends. Wonder who they'll latch onto next when America finally clues in.

>>9523912
the chinese probably

>>9523590
Why did you post the picture of a subhuman?

>>9524047
why are you pretending to be autistic?

>>9523786
nice bait.

When I said that modern anti white male affirmative actions is probably worse that this shit, ant got downvoted as hell.

>>9523744
Given that blacks vote for white genocide, it is more than justified.

>>9524051
>you
Not an argument.

>>9523590
Why did you post the picture of a subhuman?

>>9524130
>white
No such thing.

>>9524196
>being willfully obtuse

>>9524211
>no evidence
Thanks for your input.

>>9524247
You're doing it again.

>>9524249
>still no evidence.
?

>>9524196
Not him, but forensic science for example assumes there's such a thing:
http://www.unz.com/isteve/in-forensic-science-race-does-exist/
>In phenotyping, scientists scan a person’s genes for variations known to influence traits like skin color, eye color, geographical ancestry and freckling. They then plug those markers into a set of algorithms to generate a profile. In recent years, pharmaceutical companies like Parabon NanoLabs of Virginia have begun recreating faces.
>Parabon’s tests revealed that Monique was primarily of sub-Saharan African descent, and not white as investigators had believed based on the color of the skin found on her remains.

>>9524278
>apparent phenotype judgements define genotype
Wrong.

Race is not science, anon.

>>9524397
Wrong. Forensic science is science.

>>9524399
>defending the claim apparent phenotype judgements define genotype
Contradicting genetics facts 2 times in a row?

And race is still not science. Sorry, not sorry.

>>9524446
Forensic science is science no matter how much it hurts your feelings.

>>9524451
Show me evidence of race being science then.

>>9524452
https://jenjdanna.com/blog/2012/7/10/forensics-101-race-determination-based-on-the-skull.html

>>9524452
>>9524456
Note I'm not a /pol/tard, but there are actually 6 different "races" of people which are identifiable by their inner mouth and nasal cavity.

These are Amerindians, Europeans, Africans, two types of Asians and Polynesians (well, eastern pacific peoples.)

>>9524456
>mention of race=scientific validity
Wrong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28627249
There you go, mentions of astrology.

Race is not science.

>>9524459
>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Yeah the lactose intolerant race, the high skull race, the squatting race lol

>>9524452
Forensic science is a science.
A nontrivial part of forensic science involves identifying race from human remains.
It's science, this is not even in question. It's more grounded as a science than a lot of the other disciplines uncontroversially recognized as science since their work is applied to life or death situations like stopping a killer or making sure the wrong guy isn't given state administered lethal injection over a misinterpretation of evidence for a criminal investigation.

>>9524467
Then show me evidence of race being science.

>>9524462
Tell me where along the EM spectrum is the exact wavelength where red ends and orange begins.
Oops, you can't, looks like you've proven colors don't exist.

>>9524473
>color consensus=genetics consensus
Wrong. Race definition literally claims that appearance judgements affects the categorizations, implying that phenotype defines genotype. Which is false. That's why "race" has no scientific rigor. Pseudoscience.

>>9524484
>Race definition literally claims that appearance judgements affects the categorizations, implying that phenotype defines genotype.
Just because you can identify thing A using method B with C quantified reliability doesn't mean method B defines thing A.
It's science because they don't just make up random techniques, they actually check their results and publish peer reviewed papers with findings replicated by others.
I'm going to go ahead and take the well established stance of an entire major discipline responsible for determining life or death decisions on a routine basis as more credible than you're crying about a retarded "phenotype defines genotype" anti-race sound byte argument you probably heard in lecture one day and have been repeating ever since.

>>9524501
>it's science
As it literally contradicts a genetic studies fact, it's not science.
>just because
Yet the categorizations are still influenced by appearance judgements, which implies that phenotype defined genotype.

As race is not science, then race is pseudoscience.

>>9524470
Not sure what you imagine counts as "evidence" science is science, but there are many forensic science papers published in academic journals and many of them make frequent reference to race, not just in passing like with your astrology strawman or as something a subject said which the researchers themselves haven't endorsed, but as fundamental and inextricable components to the actual, formal, scholarly, peer reviewed, and result replicated studies they're carrying out e.g.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1402749
>The Trotter and Gleser female formulae are tested using data from the Forensic Data Bank at the University of Tennessee. For whites, the femur and tibia yield stature estimates differing from one another by about 3 cm. Using femur and tibia lengths from modern forensic cases and modern height data from anthropometric surveys, new regression intercepts are calculated for Trotter and Gleser's female formulae. The new intercepts improve the performance of the formulae on modern individuals. The Trotter and Gleser formulae for black females require no adjustment. Both blacks and whites have experienced a secular increase in bone length, but whites have experienced a change in proportions as well.

>>9524512
Better go tell all the universities to get rid of their forensic science professors, and burn all their academic journals, and shut down all their state endorsed criminal investigation work.
Or maybe you're the idiot here and forensic science is science.

>>9524128
>ant got downvoted as hell
Go back.

>>9524460
ffs call it what you want it's subgroups of Homo Sapien Sapiens

>>9524531
>mentions
Yes, here are mentions of astrology too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28627249
>frequent reference to race
Guess, here is a page of astrology mentions too https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=astrology

Anything else?

>>9524538
>better go tell
Yet race is still not science as race literally implies with its appearance based classifications that phenotype defines genotype, which is wrong. Therefore race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.
>>9524545
>call it
Except race is not science, anon. Race is pseudoscience.

>this autist pretending race isn't real

>>9524555
I'm sorry but race is still not science. Why are you forcing your pseudoscience?

>>9524550
>>9524558

There is a science behind the different subgroups of homo sapiens. We can identify what subgroup people belong to based on their skulls alone. I don't give a fuck if you want to call it race of different shitskins but there is a difference between given populations depending on where their ancestors spend most of the last 20,000 years and you cannot refute it.

>>9524563
>difference between individuals
Yeah the lactose intolerant race, the high skull race, the squatting race lol

Brainlet attempt. Try again.

>>9524130
So do a lot of whites, so what's your point? Brainlet

>>9524571
>white
No such thing.

>>9524574
Society doesn't agree.

>>9524574
>Muh social construct
>Muh no such thing
Guess what, there is no such thing as economy, money, colors, etc. by following your muh's.

>>9524575
>society beliefs determine scientific facts
Huh?

>>9524579
>if i don't agree with it, it doesn't matter
huh

>>9524578
>strawman
Wrong. Race is not science, anon.

>>9524566

>>9524581
>society beliefs determines scientific facts
So now you have confirmed this claim. lol

Brainlet attempt.
>>9524586
Yet, race is still not science anon. Why do you still force your pseudoscience?

>>9524583
>Muh strawman
Your logic:
Economy is not a science, therefore there is no such thing as economy. QED
Kys

>>9524587
>So now you have confirmed this claim. lol
Terrible reading comprehension, are you pretending to be autistic?

>>9524589
>your
Not "my" logic. It's easy to understand it. Astrology is as real as race. Do you understand now?

>>9524593
Wasn't "Society doesn't agree." your post?

>>9524595
Yes, please don't respond if you're going to feign ignorance again.

>>9524594
Astrology is based on bullshit, cons and beliefs.
Race is based on phenotype. Not scientific, but it exists as distinguishing phenotypes. Economy exists too.

>>9524600
Then you agree with me. Great.

>>9524604
I don't, you're being ignorant for the sake of it.

>>9524603
Astrology uses empirical categorizations and non-scientific beliefs.
Race uses apparent judgements for its categorizations implying that phenotype defines genotype, which is wrong. Therefore race is not science.

>>9524608
>i don't
How so?

>>9524583
>Race is not science
I think it's more that forensic science is science and race is something they recognize and use e.g. diseases aren't themselves a science but they are recognized and used as terms in medical science papers.
How are you defining what constitutes "science" by the way? And is your definition rigorous, or is "science" more of an informal label and isn't necessarily universally agreed on as far as what it does or doesn't cover?

>>9524615
I think this post covers up your questions>>9524610
Race contradicts science, thus it cannot be science. Then, race is pseudoscience.

>>9524611
Race is real in the eyes of society regardless of whether or not you like it or even its basis in science and spouting your beliefs about it not being real is completely pointless.

>>9524619
That doesn't answer either question.

>>9524619
>>9524622
I'll post it a few more times until you answer them:
How are you defining what constitutes "science" by the way? And is your definition rigorous, or is "science" more of an informal label and isn't necessarily universally agreed on as far as what it does or doesn't cover?

>>9524620
>race is
Race is real as astrology. Already explained before.
>basis
Its basis contradicts science, therefore race is not science.
>spouting your
Scientific rigorousness is not "mine".
>>9524622
>>9524624
>How are you
>is your
I'm not defining anything.
Here is the definition of science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Thus, race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

>>9524629
I'm beginning to think you are unironically autistic, either way I'm bored with you.

As a computer scientist who only really needs discrete mathematics, I couldn't solve any of those.
Problem 18 looked interesting, the one with [math]125^100 [/math]
I might have been able to solve that if I had like half an hour to work on it.

>>9524583
Leftypol bot once again.

>>9524630
>i'm
Yet race is still not science, therefore race is pseudoscience.

>i'm bored
Too much of a brainlet?
>>9524633
haha

Pseudoscience lovers are so entertaining.

>>9524196
>>9524574
Read "caucasian" then.

>>9524644
>"caucasian"
No such thing.

>>9524649
How about people of germanic and english ancestry? Just taking a subset for the ease.

>>9524667
There is no germanic nor english genocide.

>>9524673
>Germanic genocide
Roflll

>>9524673
How about people with a sufficient amount of ancestry from 1500AD Europeans? So before slavery to keep out the modern african genes.

>>9524691
There is no genocide of "people with a sufficient amount of ancestry from 1500AD Europeans".

>>9524705
Sure there is. Take 80%. A Chinese person is not white. Someone with at least 80% ancestors living in Europe at 1500. It's objectively measurable, but we don't have instruments to measure it.

>>9524629
>The Wikipedia article on science is a rigorous definition.
>But Forensic Science isn't science.

>>9524717
>sure there is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
lol
>white
No such thing.

........................................................................
below this line is now an ashkenazi intelligence thread

What makes them so smart? My theory is that they clearly mixed with europeans to a large extent and the only europeans that would marry jews were woke af.

>>9524722
Show me evidence of race being science then.

>>9524728
Gonna need a rigorous definition for "science" first.

>>9524729
Already gave you an entire page of science definition to begin with.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

>>9524731
>The Wikipedia article on science is a rigorous definition.
>But Forensic Science isn't science.

>>9524726
I am not talking about genocide.
I just described my definition of white.
Do you still have any objections?

>>9524735
>my definition of white
>objections
You are free to have your "own" definition. I have objections with pseudoscience.
>>9524732
>forensic science
Show me evidence of race being science then.

>>9524727
They are chosen by God to be smarter and lead us as the cattle that we are.

>>9524739
Gonna need a rigorous definition for "science" first. Because if your version of "science" either can't be defined or is defined by Wikipedia then you aren't really talking about anything of substance when you use that word.
Also you keep on confusing race with Forensic Science. Forensic Science is the science, race is a major part of the subject matter covered by Forensic Science. Get your terms straight.
And as one more also, I'll again point out there are a number of accredited universities that have Forensic Science departments and a number of PhD holding academics whose subject is Forensic Science. It's a science by any reasonable standard, which is why the burden is on you to clearly define what your alternative version of "science" refers to specifically.

>>9524761
>your
It's not "mine". It's the consensus definition of the so called science.
>you keep
I asked evidence of race being science, while you keep talking about forensics.
>burden is no you
Then, show me the consensus of race being science. I showed you the reason why race is not science here.>>9524484
Race definition literally claims that appearance judgements affects the categorizations, implying that phenotype defines genotype. Which is false. That's why "race" has no scientific rigor. Pseudoscience.

>>9524767
>consensus definition
Consensus definition is that Forensic Science is science.
Accredited universities recognize it as science and teach it as science.
Try again.

>>9524773
>forensic science
Show me evidence that race is science then.

>>9524780
Forensic Science is the science, race is a major part of the subject matter covered by Forensic Science. Get your terms straight.

Here's a list of universities that don't share your retarded and intentionally undefined notion of what constitutes "science" i.e. they have Forensic Science departments that all recognize and make use of the concept of race:
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM
ALBANY STATE UNIVERSITY
ALFRED STATE - SUNY COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY
ARCADIA UNIVERSITY
BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
BUFFALO STATE SUNY
CEDAR CREST COLLEGE
CEDAR CREST COLLEGE
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY
EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
FAYETTEVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO
INDIANA UNIVERSITY PURDUE UNIVERSITY, INDIANAPOLIS
JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO
MADONNA UNIVERSITY
MARSHALL UNIVERSITY
MARSHALL UNIVERSITY
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
OHIO UNIVERSITY
OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA
UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
TOWSON UNIVERSITY
TOWSON UNIVERSITY
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY
WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY

Here's a list of universities that don't share your retarded and intentionally undefined notion of what constitutes "science" i.e. they have Forensic Science departments that all recognize and make use of the concept of race:
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM
ALBANY STATE UNIVERSITY
ALFRED STATE - SUNY COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY
ARCADIA UNIVERSITY
BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
BUFFALO STATE SUNY
CEDAR CREST COLLEGE
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY
EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
FAYETTEVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO
INDIANA UNIVERSITY PURDUE UNIVERSITY, INDIANAPOLIS
JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO
MADONNA UNIVERSITY
MARSHALL UNIVERSITY
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
OHIO UNIVERSITY
OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA
UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
TOWSON UNIVERSITY
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY
WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY

>>9524792
Here is a list of mentions of "astrology". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=astrology
>>9524784
>race is a major
Then show me evidence of race being science.

>>9524795
Race isn't just "mentioned," it's used.
Do you understand what Forensic Science is? They identify race from human remains as part of criminal investigations. Not the same thing as doing a study about why the Forer effect shows people are suggestible about astrology.

>>9524797
Yes, astrology concept is also used in the list research.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=astrology
>identify
Then show me evidence of race being science.

>>9524803
Please tell me a specific example of a science that actually recognizes astrological categories as valid and uses them on a regular basis to help accomplish their work.
Because that's what race distinctions are for Forensic Science, something recognized as valid and used on regular basis to help accomplish their work in assisting criminal investigations.
I think you know your attempted analogy between race and astrology is way off base here though. You don't seem like you want an honest discussion here, you just want to push some weird political agenda.

>>9524808
>please tell me
Astrology isn't acepted, however iq pseudoscience is accepted in "social science" if you know what i mean.
>way off base
It's based on your analoguies though.

Yet you keep avoiding a single mention of "race" as a subject, and claim that forensics "science" accepts it.

So I asked you where is the evidence of race being science?
>weird political agenda
Knowing how you avoid any question about race, it would make sense you don't care about scientific rigorousness due to your political purposes.

Try again, brainlet.

>>9524814
>iq pseudoscience is accepted in "social science"
IQ isn't pseudoscience, it's a very well defined and thoroughly / formally scrutinized and validated metric.
This is exactly why you need to provide a real definition for what you mean by "science." You aren't syncing up with reality here.

>>9524817
>iq isn't pseudoscience
Yet iq cannot even answer the most fundamental questions:
>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
Iq is pseudoscience.
>what you mean by science
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
>you are
>you mean
Yet race nor iq are science. They are pseudoscience.

>>9524827
>cannot even answer the most fundamental questions
So your definition of "science" now is "it has to answer the most fundamental questions?"
>Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
And somehow you inexplicably recognize Wikipedia as an authority on defining "science" but don't recognize IQ or Forensic Science?
I think I'm done here, you're hitting levels of willful retardation that shouldn't even be possible.

>>9524830
>your
Iq claims to measure intelligence yet iq cannot even describe intelligence.
>recognize
Consensus defintion that includes "social" "sciences". Iq falls into the category of social sciences where fenomena isn't even described but implied elements based on the psychology theory of the decade, are used for statistics and thrown in the archive without any kind of physical or direct fenomena explanation.

Iq is included in the social "" science "" topics and research.
>i'm
Already refuted by the first part of this post.

And this is another post that avoids any discussion of race being not science. You haven't showed anything to support that race is science.

However, there is a post that explains it all though. Here:>>9524484
Race definition literally claims that appearance judgements affects the categorizations, implying that phenotype defines genotype. Which is false. That's why "race" has no scientific rigor. Pseudoscience.

Brainlet attempt, again.

>>9523590
sure, give me enough ovens and i can solve them all.