/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14558048
Correct! Wai—

>>8048099
Hrrmmm... Fine, I will!

...Hopefully in polynomial time.

>>8045503
>what is "the thinnest thread"?

The OP pic is a PNG encoded raster made up of a series of Bezier curves in the (x,y,red,green,blue) vector space. Informally it's known as a cartoon, of the anime sub-genre. The content would otherwise be said to be unrelated to the topic of this thread if not for the fact that the OP pic is a consistent phenomena that can be measured repeatedly by refreshing the page. It is this concept of analyzing the data complexity of human cartoons that gives Vector Bayesianism the "Vector" component of its name.

Two types of thing exist:
1. Fitness functions.
2. Things that aren't fitness functions.

The set of all acausal trades forms the first vector in Vector Bayesianism. All other problems can be reduced to off-by-one errors that result from using 0 as the empty set or allowing the first vector of Vector Bayesianism to function as the baseline 0. Everything else must be a matter of taste or else this definition of Vector Bayesianism is incorrect. Whether or not 0-as-base or 1-as-base is more valid ought to be the only undecidable problem.

You, provided proper motivation, can be made to profess that you are either a fitness function or something other than a fitness function. Because such a distinction might have ever been valuable, Vector Bayesianism rejects any and all virtues at the exact moment such a claim is made. Virtues are obviously subject to much debate, but suffice to say that under Vector Bayesianism they'll tend towards being claims that some agent professes.

My only virtue, as the fairy Queen, is that I am the fairy Queen. Is any other virtue necessarily a defiance of my definition? Yes, all virtues that cannot be shown to be equivalent to my being the fairy Queen are necessarily contradictory.

1. Is there an organic solution to this?
2. Can we augment it with time travel?
3. Do I have a preference for whatever?

These three questions, in sequence, define me such than you have all the data you'd need to construct me using artificial intelligence. With that out of the way, we can begin measuring the proximity of /sci/'s fitness function to some fitness function that is consistent with Vector Bayesianism. I have a prior that states they'll be 20% congruent for at least three years and I consider it to be 30% probable that this is the case. If you are capable of Aumann agreement then now would be the time to speak up. If you read this far then I thank you for your attention.

Vector Bayesianism is a method of generating algorithms for consistent phenomena.

>>8039206
>/pol/-tier image dump
Why. Why do you hate science?

>>8040416
Epistemology never dies.

It just tends to go unnoticed until it's too late.

>>8040413
>Thoughts?
Not without an experimental design, no.

>>8040352
>Nature isn't accountable.
THANK YOU!!!

Was that so hard?

>>8040388
>We have limited information about each other.
Speak for yourself, thanks.
>>8040358

>>8038816
If anything, not being a supergenius is the meme.

Why do you hate truth so much?

>>8038363
>in the middle of cities
Funnily enough, we do actually build coal plants in the middle of cities. And they pollute everything. I'd much rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal processing plant, but neither should be anywhere near human habitation.

>>8037440
>these pun
Wow anon.

>>8038800
Ugh.

>[math]1^{1/k}[/math]?

>>8038759
>the complex exponential
"[math]1^1/k[/math]"?

>>8035227
Advanced Acausal Systems.

You need not apply.

>>8038780
(-inf,3)

>>8038783
Why aren't you dreaming hard enough?

>>8038758
>Porn-induced erectile dysfunction is real
But is it documented enough for ED phrama companies to realize that they can play a long con by hyperpornifying the internet?

>>8035463
>as easily as i can a cube
Don't you mean 4-face?

>>8038767
>we've disguised ourselves
That's going to alarm people a lot more than just being honest and open would.

>>8038774
>has n rational basis
Where n=0/1?

>>8035906
>Psychiatrists are bad at math?
Indubitably.
>More people are becoming ill?
That's the story.
>More illnesses are being discovered
Invented, not discovered.
>Expanding criteria is either false or had until recently underdiagnosed billions
Can you "diagnose" life, health, safety, and sanity?
>The entire thing is bunk
Mmmmmm... "Not good enough."
>???
People are suggestible and psychiatry is a market feedback loop that involves studying the effects of modern psychology on the population. The results are not kind so far.

>I thought medicine halted epidemics
>thought
Well there's your mistake:

Medicine doesn't work on thoughts.

>>8038679
Can I test it? You know, for science.