/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5670062

you basically take the bent spacetime under the earth and put it on top of the earth; two paraboloids whos open face touch. but this visualization obviously has issues and shouldn't be taken seriously

>>5670990

you're wrong, but w/e

>>5670977

the world wouldn't be better or worse without humans because better and worse are ideas made up by humans for humans

>>5670941

to understand quantum mechanics, you need to learn classical mechanics first.

you need to learn about a bunch of calculus subjects and linear algebra for it to make sense

>>5670805

if you want to know where einstein is coming from with a lot of his work, you should read spinoza too

>>5670719

>in a thread
> failing at applying logic to something that is not related to science
> you guys are both idiots

>>5670700

he's talking about the difference between distinguishable and indistinguishable, and said since they're indistinguishable, the probability is different, which is true

>>5670682

you fucking idiot, you can read from the book and type what you read

>>5670688

troll/10 tymen

>>5670666

but that's assuming both coins are flipped at the same time, and that isn't explicitly stated in the problem

>>5670595

that IS the simple method

>>5670610

for that matter, we could assume that the first coin he flips is double sided heads, so that it's always heads, in which case the chance would be 50/50

>>5670604

in this case,

1+1 = 3 because op's a faggot

both the calculation and conclusion are wrong, i don't see why you don't get it

>>5670606

you're wrong. you can have an arbitrarily large amount of 0's to left, but not an infinite amount

>>5670583

that was my point. i was agreeing with you

>>5670566

if the calculation is wrong, then the conclusion is wrong. you can disprove the assertion by showing the calculation is wrong, but you don't have to show the calculation is wrong by proving it. we're talking about 2 different things, and you're talking about the former which isn't necessary

>>5670574

"Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the physical science" by philip begington and D. Keith Robinson

isbn: 0-07-247227-8
978-0-07-247227-1

>>5670562

you can take a digit and multiply it by a number to the -infinity power and you'd get the same thing

>>5670555

no, you can take any number with n digits and express it as a product of digits with less than n digits each. you could have an infinite amount of numbers expressed this way

>>5670549

what i'm saying is that if someone does a calculation and in the calculation they write 1+1 = 3

you don't have to prove that 1+1 != 3 you just tell them that they're wrong, because everyone should know that 1+1 = 2 under standard operations. it's the same thing in this case

>>5670540

yea, i said that on purpose.

but you could imagine a set where any number with n digits could be expressed as a number with no more digits than the limit defined

>>5670531

you said that it was implied. it's not implied at all. I qouted the comment and it doesn't say anything about anihilation or where the matter comes from. since OP didn't give an explanation to his comment, you have to interpret it literally, which isn't what you did. you faggots can argue forever about what you assume op meant, but that's not going to solve anything

>>5670417

this isn't true. for any subject you talk about, there's a minimum level of knowledge that needs to be assumed. if someone does a calculation and gets a wrong answer, you tell them what part of the calculation is wrong but you don't need to prove that that incorrect calculation is incorrect

>>5670524

anon was referring to OP, it's you that has issues with reading comprehension