/sci/ - Science & Math

2.3 million more jobs.... at NASA!

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/comphelp/v101v121/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.xlf121.aix.doc/proguide/pdo.html

The examples for the lastprivate/doprivate link shows they don't use the same variable name/identity. (k, and x.) You have d0 and d0.

You might be able to increase the yield of ion propulsion if you could get your ions to spin / eject at the same time as a magnetic moment....

Version 2:

The other option is that the casimir effect isn't quite as Quantum-ly bound as we normally think it is. In this case, we get to play with the rotational value of the portals. If the portal is positioned so that one of the surfaces is not perpendicular to the incline, then it is possible that the movement of the incline would cause a centrifugal rotation to the die as it sits there.

The rotational effect could cause the cube to shoot out if the buildup of force is sufficient to alter it's sum vectors. In this case, B would be inaccurate because it isn't showing a vector which is plausible. (die should be counter-spinning relative to the rotation of the incline. and not be just a tangent to a circle. Die should be showing a more then just a single dot.)

A sliding object does not *plop* (somebody needs read comic books more.)

An object at rest is an object at rest, so the closest would be A.

It's a question of how portals work. When you open a portal or wormhole, you are making two points in space touch each other, but not the next two. If said portal isn't formed in a dipole system, you can't enter said portal. If it is a dipole system, this requires that the distance traveled between each entrance can only approach zero; not be zero.

Let's expand this whole cube thing so that we can at least better identify what we see. Let's call the cube a die so that we can at least claim we are seeing the same face of the object. This doesn't help much actually.... ^_^

Given that the die is "always" not quite zero over the distance of the incline, but is perpendicular to the incline, a sliding effect can occur up until the reaches the edge of the of the portal. (in this case, the corners of the die would hit the circumference.)

As the materials are bound by the approaching zero system, we get stuck with the casimir effect. So the die most likely gets fused to the edge of the incline in an E 3 system which totally blows up the universe. (*maybe.)

The problem is that the die is present at 2 zero positions. It is both sitting on the pedestal and sitting on the incline at the same time. As such, the area covered by the portal is causing pedestal and the incline are also going through the casimir effect with themselves in addition to the corners of the die.

What are you arguing philosophy against?

If nobody bothers to tell you that Ontological and Teleological arguments would look at different parts of philosophy all together (and as such doesn't need to disprove one kind.), then you should just toss their recommendations out the window.

Honestly, I'd argue philosophy using all three. A blended approach.

Start with Ontology so that you can derive a base structure for philosophy so that you can at least have that knowledge is mind-dependent. With that, you then can use the cosmological argument for a structure which then proposes a Teleological argument for where knowledge ends at. (extra credit for keeping dualism in play.)

To be clear, each school of thought is more akin to a tool then it is to an identity.

If they get removed as a minority, we obviously must accept them as being normal? Yes?

One of the problems that people never ever bloody well ask is do we completely fuck up the entire genetic pool for sexual delineation during the process?

We very much don't have a very good understanding of recessivity to our gene structure. Provided that "in males" certain structures are supposed to be dominant but in transgender or Homosexual tendencies they become recessive; corrections for said aberration would then most likely result in our demise if we continue to have sexual intercourse for breeding purposes, simply due to how genetic splicing works.

Instead of having an abundance of male-male sexual relations, we would increase the likelihood that females would also want to have female interaction with females. Instead of simply being a natural occurrence over the normal genetic pool.

Instead of correcting the problem we end up breeding the trait to our offspring. As such, we no longer wish to have sexual intercourse for breeding purposes.

We either die out or develop a new cultural basis for our sexual appetites, making the reasons for the gene correction irrelevant in the first place. Test tube babies all around the world.

Can we prove an ethical proposition to the scenario?

In this case, you would argue a war is most probable, whose exactness would then require an argument for scaling responsibility from that frame over that of liability.

My answer would be 3. Both men. A for doing his job, and B for fucking his up. (supposedly. Maybe he's just bad at his job of mine detection?)

Would depend on the portal type most likely.

Taking the Slider's portal, the phenomena that makes up the separation in space seems to be more toroid, and likely couldn't cut.

Taking Star Trek portals.. you dead man. Real dead. Probably are part of new atomic structures that can't really exist in our universe. Alot of them require trajectories and some other odds and bits that let you stay cohesive.

Most of the other ones.... maybe a knife.

No argument really made; however his observation of organality and dimensions is sort of accurate. Most of the time you don't need to worry about which version you are using between all the systems. (ie. the distance in between to points will always be the distance between two points.)

Read up on reference frames some.

>>6086095
>in
>>6086095

When you can adjust the Casmir effect, it'll make the joining even easier.

Try further testing of some growth patterns for plants over centrifugal force for further inclusion of the stuff they've tested on that space station thingy. ^_^

Ima go with 36, since I don't recall seeing 6 yet.
Switching the Bodmas system, you get:

6/1 / 2(1+2) = 36.

(Yes, I failed university math a few times.)

Windows calculator is 6 / (3) = 2

So we've got.. 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,36 for possible answers now.

Let's go with Undefined via Order of operations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y9h1oqv21Vs

And again, Order of Operations is wrong. Math is just a procedure that starts with two numbers that combine to then give you one number. If you reverse your operations, you can see some funky stuff happening.

As we have no subtraction, everything is distributive and gives you a lot of answers in this case.

2(1+2) = 6
2*1 + 2*2 = 2+4 = 6

We really should start with the crazy at moving the sun first. As people state, raw materials is limited ergo we need a way to get raw materials. Use uhm... Jupiter as a fuel source..

Frankly Dyson spheres are a waste of resources. As the sun grows into a red giant, how fast can we expand the dyson sphere?

Needs more math.

Theoretically, you can further improve their work by improving the calculation for how light particles distribute their energy when "interacting" with atoms at the mono-level.

Since we're dealing with pellets, we get stuck with additional bonds and a few other factors. One of the many things I've not read about this kind of reactor is how the pellet is structurally. (crystal-type.)

I count 182 sides to this thing. It is very much not a cube.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/fuelcells/so/sofcmain.htm

1930's technology that was in use in gasp... the 1930's. (well, usable.) Energy has gotten expensive enough that 80 year old technology can become a viable marketable source of income.

It's a fucking dumb assignment.

A machine is basically a repetitive function. In this case, you are dealing with a closed system, the 52 cards.

The wording of the question doesn't state that the cards have to stay constant. It states that you have to prove somehow that producing 2 cycles of n-length are going to produce a specific arrangement of your n values. It further requests that you fuck up your math such that you insist that resolving an infinite regress proves that somehow 52 cards are incapable of actually being a mathematical model.

So, in this case, you get an n-quantity which gets divided into two n subsets; for which you mix things up.

In this case it's just a complete fuckup. Part of the problem is it gives you the option to choose whether to do an inner or an outer shuffle, which allows you to undo specific n-cycles, if you know what you are doing. (one to the left, one to the right and oh... hey, you have your top card again.)

Normally they argue that the 26 division n-cycle is never divisible by the n-4 cycle derived from suit set of your cards and makes whatever shuffling system appear as if it is infinite.

They basically argue... A(2b) = 52, but b can be called 4d that is divided by 26 (while ignoring the "A" half of the equation) and voila, you can't solve this.

They request a machine that doesn't work.

Not necessarily true. Given the system of introducing a closed world and making an application as if you could join it to one with a specific set of infinite for it's series value n, is.

We are still adding "non-existent" point values into solving the question. How they get added is where we are running into consistency errors.

Any statisticians around? I vaguely recall a modelling system that used the x=y system for a cardinality.

In that case, you have 2 series with a missing 4 on the first one.

56-42= 14
42-30 = 12
30-10 = 10
(null)
3 = 8

As both sides are independent sets, we don't have to worry about the 4 problem, and the second set of numbers remains consistent, with a specific logical structure.

(or we could just give the 3 companion a random data-point and claim both sets are random generates.)

If you look at the question, what you have is a number A followed by the sign for equivalence and then a number that is not a.

To prove the inequality, we derive a rule sit for the difference between A, and "not a".

3 =3 is still A, ergo 3 can't be 3, which disproves both answers.

So we have to come up with a different composition to our theory; and arbitrarily make "not a" a "B", as they are still equivalently sound while still allowing that 3 can still be 3.

A = B

Hmm.... Still not right.

Instead of introducing new rule sets that pre-exist within the world, we introduce a new world.

ie. F(x) G(a): where the G(a) is going to be non-variable in nature. (ie. albegra.) This in turns doesn't work as it fails the rule set for 2 = ?

The other problem with some of these types is that they don't really calculate the relative change in the matrix values for after fusion takes place, from a doping perspective. (last time I actually saw information that was citizen-available, at least.)

So when your plasma mixture becomes heavier due to the actual fusion you are doing, your energy inputs for both speed, compression and magnetic inferences will scale relative to the quantity of the change in mixture.

See ice-6, for instance. If you build a compression mold for sustaining ice-3, but find a way to convert them to the ice-6 values without being able to keep the compression stable... it's going to destabilize very, very fast. (one or two ice-6 particles won't cause much problems, but say... a 1.7% dope?)

Batman gone postal.

If we found an alien race that was kind enough to use our planet as an experiment to test their multi-thousand mile wide mirror array.... then yes.

Of course, we'd of had to blow their ship out of the sky by that time. Good news is that we'd likely have a few years before their family starts getting worried about their missing offspring.

I never see anything involving repair-ability with super-awesome-mega-long-fast transport of this type.

Build a tunnel. Then what? Mini- tectonic shift and we have a useless tunnel that we can't repair.

1. Probably. From my understanding, there is yet a correlation between density and the event horizon per se, but rather the amount of gravity and dimension tearing it creates.

Basically, there is a min and a max to the density variable, at least until you get into how far exactly you can shift dimensions and the quantum relationship for them. (if there is one.) At that point, you then end up in a position where "structure" as we know it can no longer interact with each other. Hell, it's so complicated that it is theoretically possible that some values will transmute in one way or another. (the components that make up the weak force, for instance behave as if they were the electro-magnetic force, for example.)

The best singularity-type I can think of that would be supportive would be a micro-verse that isn't quite complete, and would look similar and behave as if it were the theory for the rubber-band expansion/contraction introduction to the universe. The amount of tearing that happens might exceed the ratio of mass over volume that creates density itself, and as such provides a certain amount of room for the capture of additional particles.

2. If the singularity-system held true, then the expansion rate, capture rate would then have to be calculated over the change in particle-interactions. As such, keeping certain variable-interactions stable would alter the escape velocity for each and every particle. Compounded over keeping certain perceivable "reality-precepts" would further boost the derivative number over a set volume. The "escape velocity" would then change to traditional vector systems upon re-entry into normal space.