/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1034158

Then why are there discord amongst computational linguistics, about how natural language is parsed?

We don't know how out language is understood by ourselves, and you manage to spout this ugly horseshit?

Learn to science you stupid piece of shit.

>>1033591
Fixed this for you.

>>1028279
First actually decent lecture.

This was really good.

>>1028322
ITT: People learn basic formal logic.

It's really fucking neat, but every half-decent textbook on discrete mathematics/formal logic will have an explanation of how to do that shit in formal logic. And then you just need to create logical gates.

You're kidding me.

Hammer = Nails + 30.
Hammer + Nails = 31.

Hammer, Nails = ,50

Read up on BFS, DFS, IDFS and A*

Then you will be wise.

As for calculating the shortest paths, you really need to do the graph of the green dots as nodes, and the distances to the other nodes as the weights, and find the shortes cycle through good old TSP (Although there are shortcuts), which gives a mere 8! = 40320 possible paths to churn out.

You only need to calculate 56 weights to your graph, and then find best way to join in from the red dot, and remember that you want a path, not a cycle.

A rather simple problem to code.

Cog.Sci student here.

A little bit of this and that.

Electronica when coding, metal when not.
Whiny pop when thinking.

Also: Baron Blood.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXehiCe9pyg

>>1021290
To answer your question with High School naïve physics:

The idea here, is that space expands. Doesn't really matter how or why. It does.

Now, when space expands, you get more space, that also expands. So basically, it's not just the outer layer of the universe so to speak that moves, but the entirety of space within the universe itself. You can view it as sort of how a yeasted dough rises. It's not the dough stretching at the outside, it's all the little bubbles on the inside.
Cool, huh?

>>1021319
It doesn't really matter how serious they take themself, when their "unserious" and "unpublishable" thoughts are taken seriously by other and regurgitated as gospel.

The biggest problem with their rhetoric experiments is that people take them serious, and then they themselves fail to step in and say "Dudes and dudettes. Chill. We were just fucking around and playing about with argumentation. Cheese-us Christ and deliver us from you fucktardettes."

They just look at us smugly.

Read the link to Dawkins attack, and see for yourself why they came under fire. He tends to point out the obvious that we were blind to, and it's a good read.

>>1020752

I dunno, I get why some of them are invented, and agree with some of them. There's point where it needs to stop though, and we've clearly passed it 100 miles ago when people started saying womyn.

>>1020583
Already read it, and posted link to Dawkin's attack.

Feels good man.

So basically, you have some directions, right? North, south, east west, or whatever you call it. X/Y axis perhaps.

Now, take a look at my picture, and relax. Your exam is going to go just fine.

>>1020556
Forgot trip.


Also, source:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html

In case you want to read the entire can of whup-ass and told he dispensed to his audience.

>>1017053
You are now manually aware that philosophers are the root of mathematics, and regard rationalist tools in empiric endeavours as kinda cute.

Seriously, XKCD doesn't consider philosophers, and yet, without them, where would science be?

Karl Popper anyone?

>>1016439
What type of AI?

Connectionist?

GOAI?

Blackboard architecture?

>>1015955
Oh come, on! While Phrenology is clearly debunked, it did pave the way for modern neuroscience, by claiming that different parts of the brain were responsible for different things.

And whereas alchemy have been debunked, it was before we even had a scientific method, but it still paved the way for modern chemistry, and amassed a rather neat corpus of knowledge.

Magic vs Physics, and Astrology vs Astronomy are valid comparisons to ID vs Darwinian Evolution though:

Neither make any sense, neither spawned a more correct study, and both should just be remembered as a cultural belief held by silly people long ago.

Phrenology, while funny today, is not the dumbest idea ever held by a psychologist.

>>1011660
You're welcome. You might also want to check out Dennett's "Multiple drafts" model, which is pretty neat.

Ah... Exams soon over... *pains*

>>1011385
CogScifag here, read this:
http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html

It might make you happier.

>>1011287
See
>>1010512
On how to do that with any "perfect" RNG.
Of course, the list could contain any subset of integers.

>>1010625
I realize that you didn't want to just have a randomized sequence, it's just that if you ever write a RNG, and want to run it until all 100 numbers of whatever value have been pumped out, you're going to run it 100 times, and have all the numbers pumped out.

The code example was just an example of glorious programmer's rage induction.

How many times would THAT take? 5050
How many times SHOULD that take? 100

But as you already said, that was already answered.

>>1010575
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

Seriously now, it's pretty clear he was talking about this.

>>1010539
Which is different... How?

Both our algorithms output the following:

A sequence of numbers from 1-100.

So what exactly is different? That I have merely prevent the same number being listed twice? What he posted spews out a bunch of numbers, and yes, you'd have to go to 5050 to get those, statistically, but it's stupid, because nobody would ever do that if they wanted the numbers 1-100 in a random sequence anyway.

I see what the code does, but it's just unintelligent coding done by a math-head who has a declarative head void of imperative knowledge. And it frustrates me.

>>1010512
Addendum:

Whereas I realize that you wanted how to produce the number, I just wanted to point out that by writing less retarded code (It was likely from some text book) you can put that number at n, where n is the highest integer you can call, in a range from 1-n.

The rage part is that it's a really bad idea to put shitty practices into text-books.

Imagine the rage if you took some other course, and they showed the (a+b)² = a² + 2ab + b² in some retarded, slow and painful way, for instance. It's misrepresenting the way you are supposed to think and approach the subject and it is wrong to do so.

>>1010403
To speed this program up:
What you really want is a LIST of INTEGERS, from 1-n, where n is the highest number you want.

Then use your random number algorithm to pick out one of the entries in the list.
Display that number and remove it from the list.

Loop until the list is empty.

You now have to call the method 100 times, instead of 5050.

Don't they teach you anything worthwile about programming these days?