/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3261501
no I wasn't being clever it was actually an honest mistake.

So hey /sci/, I'm making this game based on this board, but not really 4chan, which might be a mini-game in some other game. So basically you receive/read an anonymous e-mail, IM, post on some other board et cetera and you can't respond directly to it for whatever reasons...

>Welcome to /sci/ club..
>first rule of /sci/ club is to tell everybody their wrong
>second rule of /sci/ club is that you're wrong
>third rule of /sci/ club is it is wrong

>When somebody asks for proof you tell them to google it themselves.

>When somebody makes a good point you link a wikipedia article that briefly mentions something their talking about and say as little about it as possible.

>If someone calls or implies you are a troll tell them everybody thinks their an arrogant faggot

what should I add or take away?
Bear in mind there will be a non-internet environment/world to explore in which this thing will comeback up where people will call it "the science club". There will be plot twists based on this element but I can't really share those because that'll destroy the purpose of this mini-game.

>>3258730
a "semantic argument" is one over definition, apropos of meaning inferred by context.

if you say a semantic argument is actually an argument over meaning (even though semantics is the meaning of signifiers) then all arguments are semantic arguments.

>>3258721
>>3258721
we both know what a particle accelerator means. we both agree they are both large and small. so we have no conflict in the definition. just over which category of particle accelerator was under discussion.

i would say this was a dispute over context.

>>3258703
>specious trolling was just being dumb claim

>>3258702
clearly

>>3258688
i'll let you have the last word on this

>>3258666
except the accelerator required to transmute elements may fit in the hand.

rutherford did it with desktop equipment.

so his point isn't really outside the context of the discussion.

>>3258666
you are easy to troll

is it aspergers, being 13 yrs old or butthurt that makes you keep arguing pointlessly on the internet?

>>3258615
>is this untrue
yes. especially that part where you said "clearly"

you said A possesses quality B
i provided a counter example.
you said clearly i was talking about certain cases of A and then got all butthurt and kept posting about it.

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

being gay and being an engineer is to be doubly blessed

>>3258596
Brunel was a faggot. It's been around since then.

>>3258583
i did share my view. you just no true scotsmanned.

>>3258571
>thinks his error is just semantics.

hahahaha

>>3258539
you miss my point

which is the existence of error (or evil) is no justification for one's own errors (or evil)

by the way, NewScientist is considered a bit of a joke by scientists

>>3258556
some particle accelerators are as big as my fist

anyway, you can do this shit in a nuclear reactor

legacy code in OS

>>3258522
why bother when for 10 billion we could by so much candy we could save the usa by giving china candy so it would be our best friend forever.

we can make gold. it is possible but difficult.

making gold requires changing one element to another. actually changing the nucleus of an atom. it is a nuclear reaction.

none of your other examples require this.

so you take mercury and bombard it with either gamma rays or neutrons. result is gold.

>>3258488
>if hitler was such an evil guy, why can't i be just a little bit bad and not be punished

>>3258168
tl;dr ITT troll recruitment

>>3258408
proof

(x+a)/(x+b) = c/d, c and d integers

dx + da = cx + cb

x(d-c) = cb - da

as LHS is irrational and right rational unless d = c we have d = c, ie (x+a)/(x+b) = 1 so a = b

wish OP knew how to communicate a problem

as it is a and b could be anything

if the expression as a whole is rational, then yes a = b

>>3258345
but why