/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5717888
it is better to extend a simpler field with the irrational than to switch bases to an irrational

e.g. define a new number <span class="math">a+b\sqrt{2}[/spoiler] with the appropriate arithmetic (actually extending rationals with square roots is very easy with 2x2 matrices)

>>5715141
They look like numbers in any other base, with the convention that the symbol set is equivalent to the natural base of the ceiling of the number, e.g base phi uses symbols like base 2 (namely, 0, 1).

>>5720162
> lisp and c
> no focus on languages otherwise
sounds excellent actually

>>5720120
You did not come off as rude.

>>5720107
I'm not trying to start a programming language war. I'm trying to point out the correlation between the elements of academic computer science and these languages.

I will happily, in other threads, wax philosophical about the merits and demerits of languages as tools for programming, but computer science is a hell of a lot more than programming and language choice does provide a pretty good window onto the department and what sort of instruction you'll have.

If you will learn one of these languages, chances are good the rest of instruction will be good.
a) Haskell
b) SML
c) Ocaml
d) Racket
e) Scheme

If these are missing but instead you have Java or Python, it starts getting pretty questionable whether you're learning "computer science" instead of "programming with libraries" aka plumbing. If the highest level language reached in undergrad is C++, ignore it entirely, it's not even computer science.

Nothing worth arguing about whether you will learn C++ or whether it is worth it; it simply shouldn't be the focus of a computer science degree.

>>5720014
make a substitution like z^2 = x and you should get a quadratic

>>5719985
agreed

>>5719973
coil guns for show rather than impact are quite practical to build as a first project

>>5719895
one's complement is a way of writing negative numbers for the purposes of binary arithmetic (which is not quite as convenient as two's complement). You convert a number like -01001 (-9) to one's compliment (wherein we drop the sign and flip all bits, giving 10110). Positive numbers like 00101 are "already converted".

For instance, we could write the decimal number 4 as 04. The corresponding way to take the "ten's complement" which aligns with one's compliment here is to take 99-4=95. So here 95 is a way of writing -4 in two digits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_complements

>>5718815
you are better off not building a railgun but instead building something more like a solenoid, it will launch a small ferromagnetic object at non-lethal speeds with more modest currents

>>5719689
> wouldn't the FFT information of that be exactly the same
no, why would it? I don't understand your confusion. If you have a few pulses of 1k that isn't a continuous 1k tone then the fourier transform would look different because the superposition would have to reconstruct the flat line between them.

>>5719405
I love this.

I'm just going to say it, because it needs to be said.

Harriet > vjuice > kstew > sasha

but only barely, in each case

>>5708162
> retiring
GenX here. None of me and mine expect to ever retire. Between the Boomers and the Republicans there's basically no chance of it.

>>5708058
I misread, my apologies.

>>5708011
give the bijection so we can see if they are indeed counting all the reals

>>5707623
then give them

>>5706306
Between any two rationals is an irrational, and between any two irrationals is a rational, therefore there must be a countable set of irrationals. Which is true, for instance the algebraic irrationals are countable (by e.g. creating a bijection between the naturals and roots of polynomials).

> an entire generation comes of age having watched robocop in their youth
> b-but ED209...

>>5707079
How do you know he wasn't talking about <span class="math">\mathbb{Q}[/spoiler]?

>>5706708
I seem to remember reading that there's a slight problem with killing everything at your destination, too.

>>5707064
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahXIMUkSXX0&list=ECF7CBA45AEBAD18B8

>>5707038
I'm unfamiliar with this metric.

>>5706973
> would X happen instantly
nothing happens in no time