[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.3561313 [View]

>>3561297
The following statement over Real Numbers is false:
(for all x) sqrt(x^2) = x

The following statement over Real Numbers is true:
(for all x) sqrt(x^2) = |x|

>> No.3559293 [View]

>>3559270
As I'm likely the only professional paid code monkey in the thread, I will say again, you ought to get a proper understanding of the fundamentals if you want to be a strong programmer, and that means learning C, C++, or some other simple algol-like language. Not a functional language. Not Java or some other garbage collected language. Those come later after you understand how they work.

>> No.3559222 [View]

>>3558993
Back? Absolutely nothing? Well then, shit. Maybe BASIC? (And I don't mean visual BASIC.) Lols.

>> No.3559027 [View]

>>3558993
I'd suggest C or C++ if you're serious about being a good / professional programmer. I think it gives you a good basic understand of computation, and then some syntantic sugar can come later.

Also learn a functional language, like Haskal.

>> No.3558982 [View]

>>3558929
I use Windows 7 Pro / Business for most of my stuff. Linux at work to ensure that the shit compiles on unix-like platforms and sometimes because gcc is cooler than msvc.

>> No.3558973 [View]

>>3557932
Faith - believing things apart from evidence or in spite of evidence.
Science - believing things because of evidence.

So no, they're about as contradictory as you can get.

>> No.3558942 [View]
File: 502 KB, 2700x1496, ayanami swimming underwater.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3558942

>>3558940
>not a Rei fan

>> No.3558828 [View]

>>3558826
Orly? Please cite some methods or papers of methods.

>> No.3558790 [View]

>>3558777
Sorry. I meant to imply "with technology and methods available to us in the reasonably foreseeable future".

>> No.3558716 [View]

>>3558689
Fail. We could not wipe out all life on Earth no matter how hard we tried. What arrogance. Thank you - come again.

>> No.3558662 [View]

>>3558631
Dan Dennett answers that - and more! - not-succinctly here.

Good Reasons for "Believing" in God - Dan Dennett, AAI 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJZQwy9dvE

In short, scientists when they make a claim have built up trust with the people. Having trust is evidence based. We trust that they have performed the falsifiable experiments of which they claim.

Religious "experts" claim not to know. They make it a point of honor of in fact not knowing. We can and do have trust that they think they're right, and that they think they've had personal experiences, but there is no trust that they've sat down and performed the observations of their (lack of) falsifiable predictions.

>> No.3558645 [View]

>>3558476
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

>> No.3554049 [View]

>>3554043
I might have been driving a cherry picker, but I was still loading the pallette and containers by hand. The stuff was not light.

Sounds like you had it more brutal though.

>> No.3554018 [View]

>>3554014
>. I'm about as out of shape as you can get for being a man, but it wasn't that bad.
Correction: While being ~6 ft and ~160 lb.

>> No.3554014 [View]

>>3553483
>So I spent this summer working in a warehouse (order picker). I wanted some exercise and take a break from studying (and managed to lose 40 pounds) but god damn: how do people do this for a living period?

I did as well, driving a Cherry Picker heavy equipment thingy. I did it for Ford for ~2 months. I don't see what the big deal is. I'm about as out of shape as you can get for being a man, but it wasn't that bad.

>> No.3542633 [View]

>>3542614
Probably.

Night /sci/.

>> No.3542632 [View]

>>3542605
>>3542617
To put it in another way, this is another unfortunate conflation. Some people believe that either you believe in discoverable morality, or you have no morality which you can morally enforce on others. This, of course, as I've demonstrated, is simply logically wrong. The deductive logic argument is invalid.

>> No.3542617 [View]

>>3542605
See. This is another problem. This is a broken argument. Some people find it "obvious" that
1- There are no discoverable morals
implies
2- You ought to be tolerant of all other people and their practices.

That argument is not obvious (a true claim concerning the deductive logic), and IMHO morally wrong (not a falsifiable claim).

Sure, there's no discoverable morality, but that does not mean I have to be tolerant of all people and all practices. I will not be tolerant of female genital mutilation, nor cultures who do death for apostasy.

>> No.3542606 [View]

>>3542593
Dunno. Don't feel too down. I might not be right. Think about it.

This has little to no practical impact on your life. At least, that is my intent. I bring this up as rather important to get rid of this silly notion that a god somehow can change things so there are objective, /discoverable/, morality. That's the thing that rubs me the wrong way. Even if god cannot be in the presence of sin, and even if god commands you to not sin, and even if you're going to suffer in everlasting torment for sinning, that still does not logically imply that you ought not sin.

If you add the premise "I ought to avoid pain", then of course with the rest of the axioms "I ought not sin" follows easily. At that point, it's merely a matter of efficacy.

The thing I want to emphasize is that with god or without god, you still make the choice. You decide how you act, and AFAIK there is no discoverable "right obligation" and "evil obligation".

>> No.3542588 [View]

Anything else before bed? Make it good, lol.

>> No.3542580 [View]

>>3542570
What do we derive them from? As a general sort of question? Or where do they come from in practice?

As a theoretical nature, we have certain ought axioms. I for instance have the axiom that people ought not harm others except for self defense. (JS Mills' The Harm Principle.)

As for the practical matter, the evidence is pretty clear that certain moral axioms are simply innate in the human brain. This is due to the shared embryology and structure of most human brains, which is the result of the shared DNA of most humans.

Other moral axioms are learned or taught.

>> No.3542561 [View]

>>3542555
Not sure if I can derive that from other more basic axioms. I probably could. However, that would first require using a non-ambiguous language, and English is not that.

At this moment, if it does not appear self evident, then I do think there is much I can do to persuade of it. The best I could possibly do is to ask for a counter-example, then ask "why?" at the part where you explicitly or implicitly bridged the is-ought gap.

>> No.3542557 [View]

>>3542547
I'm not sure what you're trying to ask me. I've been trying to remain someone ... unbiased, or objective, or neutral.

Should the person take the medicine to cure his disease? All things being equal, hell yes. They almost certainly want to be happy and healthy, and I'm all in favor of human happiness and healthiness. Is this a falsifiable claim? Hell no.

>> No.3542537 [View]

>>3542527
There are two possible questions you're asking.

1- Is it reasonable to believe that taking a certain medicine will cure a certain illness? Yes. This is a falsifiable, and presumably verified, claim.

2- Is it reasonable to take the medicine which will cure a disease you have? Perhaps - this is what we would call a moral question. It's asking you what you ought to do.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]