/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4306523]

Give me an example of a chaotic equation that even a dumbfuck like me can understand.

[sage No.4306556]

sage
The weather.
sage

[None !SteveAnJ7c No.4306555]

>>4306523
www.google.com

[Anonymous No.4306560]

>>4306556
Gratuitous sage reported, enjoy your ban.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

[Anonymous No.4306564]

>>4306556
That's not an equation. I want to see how a determenistic equation can become unpredictable because I can't imagine it.

[None !SteveAnJ7c No.4306569]

>>4306564
applicable variables?

>there really isn't a defined way of explaining it, it's a complex concept.

[Anonymous No.4306592]

>>4306569
Why can't you just give me an example of an equation?

[None !SteveAnJ7c No.4306595]

>>4306592
because they aren't all that simple, you need to work from the ground up in this instance

>besides i don't really want to write one out ...

just google it or something ...

[Anonymous No.4306602]

>>4306560
Pic related.
It's sage.

[Anonymous No.4306604]

>>4306595
The actual reason is that you're a shitposter who doesn't know any science.
All of the sudden you invade this board with a tripcode and a set of shitty cartoon images, contributing nothing but arrogant remarks to threads.
Be helpful and post science or get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.4306613]

>>4306609
I'm not OP, I'm just enraged by this retard.

[None !SteveAnJ7c No.4306611]

>>4306604
that's the exact reason im doing this, not because im reasonably interested in the board and don't quite understand the posting parameters under which you all operate, i don't want to write one out WITHOUT the proper notation, nor do i want to ...

>no need to be a dick dude, im new ... and not silly.

[Anonymous No.4306610]

>>4306604
Contd.

Or keep your trolling to religion and philosophy threads, but don't ruin legit science questions.

[Anonymous No.4306609]

>>4306604
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum#Lagrangian

Stop being fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.4306617]

>>4306611
You openly admit coming here for shitposting?
I've seen really bad shitposters like EK, mathgenius or Carl Sagan, but even those would deny being obnoxious retards.
You just put the whole /b/-faggotry on a new level.

[Anonymous No.4306618]

>>4306613
sorry, it's just im not really up to speed with how you guys operate, just an avid participant in the field.

[None !SteveAnJ7c No.4306621]

>>4306617
i see you aren't at all familiar with sociology ...

[Anonymous No.4306640]

>>4306523
Well there's always the invention of chaos theory. Have you tried reading anything?

Google Lorentz Butterfly

it's a 3d curve, meaning a (x,y,z)=f(t) because through time the point on the curve moves around on these loops. Picture related.

It comes from three simple differential equations found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_attractor

It was really the start of mathematical chaos theory because of its divergent properties. What happens is, any starting point in the space x,y,z will define a trajectory, but starting from (x+a,y+b,z+c) for a,b,c arbitrarily close to zero will cause the trajectory to diverge into a quite different spot.

You can see on my diagram that starting from two points very near one another, they start out looping in the same direction and after a little while will end up on opposite sides.

[Anonymous No.4306641]

Take a point called Z in the complex plane
Let Z1 be Z squared plus C
And Z2 is Z1 squared plus C
And Z3 is Z2 squared plus C and so on
If the series of Z's should always stay
Close to Z and never trend away
That point is in the Mandelbrot Set

[Anonymous No.4306647]

>>4306640
>You can see on my diagram that starting from two points very near one another, they start out looping in the same direction and after a little while will end up on opposite sides.

I should clarify that this has implications for the predictability of complex systems, fundamentally limited by the measurement precision of the input data.

We could model the weather if we knew precisely what state it started in or the state it is in at any point in time; just by using physics equations. The problem is knowing precisely the state it is in is impossible, any miniscule amount of approximation error will throw off the prediction some short time in the future.

[Anonymous No.4306649]

>>4306613
>implying the double pendulum is not a chaotic system

[Anonymous No.4306652]

<div class="math">x_{n+1}=r(1-x_n)</div>

thelogistic map exhibits chaos for different values of r and fractal properties. if you ever wondered what the bifurcation diagram means, look at some source code for making it

[Anonymous No.4306673]

<div class="math">x_{n+1}=rx_n(1−x_n)</div>

the logistic map exhibits chaos for different values of r. also if you ever wondered what the bifurcation diagram means, look at some source code for making it

[Anonymous No.4306679]

>>4306560
Impersonating a mod, enjoy your ban.

[Anonymous No.4306680]

>>4306555
>>4306569
A novelty account with pictures of Ron stoppable? I'm OK with this

[Anonymous No.4306683]

>>4306560
AHAHAHAH FAGGOT

[None !SteveAnJ7c No.4306694]

>>4306680
>novelt
>>4306669
>>4306646

[Anonymous No.4306699]

>>4306694
An actual proper psychologist as well? That's a pretty cool guy.

What does the fact I find ron stoppable attractive despite the fact he's deliberately goofy say about me?

[None !SteveAnJ7c No.4306708]

>>4306699
not much, just that you like ron stoppable ... or that you are quite interested in the deeper person beyond the projected superficiality of humanity.

take your pick.

[Anonymous No.4306719]

>>4306708
Nah, don't watch it. When I was a kid I had a crush on someone else who was goofy though.
But sexual attraction is supposed to be towards sexually potency and its indicators, which being goofy isn't.

Can you tell from the style in which someone talks whether they're male or female? "you" as in you personally, or in general.

[SteveAn No.4306748]

>>4306719
>But sexual attraction is supposed to be towards sexually potency and its indicators, which being goofy isn't.

no but that's a very common misconception, this is where external and environmental factors come into play.

when growing up, you are subject to forced retention of principles and concepts. if you grow up watching a specific television show or even around specific people, they way in which they behave is translated by your brain and filtered through your perceptions of both yourself and the world around you.

your brain assumes that goofy is sexy because that's the conclusion it's reached, like asexual ... asexual's brains are hardwired to believe that not desiring sex is the best way to ensure they appear sexually dominant .... it's a very complex principle

[Anonymous No.4306766]

>>4306719

There are differences, but over large units of time. And they're statistical, knowing one gender may be slightly more likely to use 'I' didn't help you play internet detective on one post.

Unless they're talking about their balls, obviously.

[Anonymous No.4306788]

>>4306748

>no but that's a very common misconception, this is where external and environmental factors come into play.

It's definitely not how things actually are (you know that, you're bi and you know stuff about how people think already) and I wouldn't be so naive as to say it's what evolution wants us to do, but it's definitely handy when selective pressures turn up.

>>4306766
Intredastig. I have a ~70% success rate after about 200 words, which is why I ask. Having real trouble with you though, you seem to change between male and female.

[None !SteveAnJ7c No.4306802]

>>4306788
>selective pressure's turn up
define them, i can, can you?

contextually of course ...

you're arguing against common knowledge here.

[Anonymous No.4306811]

>>4306802
It's pretty clear- Have offspring increases your chance of passing your genes on. Not having offspring reduces them to nil. Ergo sticking your dick in the manliest man and wasting energy/sperm in the process is a bad idea, if you want your line to survive.

[Anonymous No.4306900]

>>4306647
So if you do know the exact circumstances you can predict what will happen? I thought the whole thing about chaotic systems was that even then you couldn't.

[Anonymous No.4306909]

>>4306900
I'm pretty sure chaotic implies nothing more than that marginally different values result in drastically different outcomes. A chaotic system can still be deterministic.

[Anonymous No.4306968]

>>4306909
So would it be possible for a determenistic system to be unpredictable even with perfect information? Because it seems contradictory to me.

[Anonymous No.4306976]

>>4306968
with perfect information a deterministic system could be perfectly determined, even it it was chaotic.

Chaotic != random. Chaotic = highly sensitive to initial conditions

[Anonymous No.4306978]

>>4306968
well, that is what deterministic means, but in real life we never have perfect information.

[Anonymous No.4306989]

>>4306976
>>4306978
Alright. Then I misunderstood it.

>that is what deterministic means
Which is why it was such a mindfuck for me.

[Anonymous No.4307014]

>>4306900
no this actually exemplifies a key difference between chaos and randomness. chaotic systems are deterministic but have sensitive dependence on initial conditions. chaos theory has some remarkable applications just by assuming that there is structure like this. instead of just assuming randomness we can use time series prediction and embedding to unfold the structure of a chaotic attractor, and then possibly understand it better
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lizb/chaos/embedding.mpg

[Anonymous No.4307645]

>>4306523
1+1= 2
or
.9. . . = 1

[Anonymous No.4307646]

>>4307645
The second equation is wrong.