So, appearantly we humans are a tropical species, I just read about this right now. Even Europeans, Inuits and other folks in the north! How on Earth? I assumed that populations who live in colder climates for a couple of thousand years would have adapted to the climate. But it turns out, nope. We are still very much are slaves to warm air. The lightening of our skin, the changes to our hair and eyes are quite literally...just skin deep.
Now, if we accept this theory, does that mean that if we moved let's say an average European to a place with tropical climate,...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I lived in the south hemisphere for 30 yrs, 12 of those I lived in the tropic of capricorn, now I'm living in the north
sure nordics thrive here, but they cannot wait to escape to some wet hot paradise. I thought I would love the winters, but I cannot get used to them.
ok, having seasons is nice, and the nature is gorgeous, but man... the fucking witner darkness makes me wanna kill
thus math aren't any better than sociology.
What's the bare minimum number of individuals needed to produce a viable species population? If 99% of humans were destroyed, how many humans would be needed to "repopulate" the earth?
Name one greater Scientist.
Which academic field studies and analyzes different approaches to science and mathematics using logic? For example, explains the scientific method and why it's effective using logic.
90% of 7th Year Chinese Math Students could solve this problem, prove you're smarter than a Chinese kid.
Prove that R ∪ S is reflexive if either R is reflexive or S is reflexive
What is the usual distinction between Proposition and Theorem?
are both propositions, the former is also a theorem of, for example, Peano arithmetic.
Colloquially, unprovable (w.r.t. a certain theory at hand) propositions like [math]5+4=10[/math] are not even mentioned in math books and the word is just used for less important theorems.
I recently got a book from Peter Pflichta, who trys to explain the rules of physcis with math. He claims to have derived constants like c, h and G from number theoretical aspects of his model of spacetime. I don't know much about math and can neither comprehend his theory or put it off as coincidence. What does /sci/ think about this?
It does indeed end before integrals. I know some basic rules, but there's much to catch up for me. Geometry and such, he describes nuclei as some sort of spheric structure with imaginary and real parts representing charge in a 4d non-euclidean space.
I have a pretty practical question for you guys
Some time ago i had the urgent need to write in a way that i could only read, i didnt know the best way to do it so i ended up replacing each letter with a completely different character that has nothing in common with the original letter. Now i'm quite fast writing and reading it so its very convenient but i was thinking: is it safe? how easy would it be to decipher my code having a text of +1000 words, knowing the language i write in, and given that i dont use any punctuation, space and capital letters?
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Assuming you consistently write it the same way yes someone could figure it out.
If you only write one message using a code however and then come up with an entirely different code next time then no they probably couldn't.
You're using a substitution cipher. Think about the regular distribution of letters; there's more e's than q's, for instance. In fact, there's a letter frequency table you can look up that tells you how frequent a letter is in a given codex. If we tallied up your letters and matched it with the letter frequency, we might not get EVERY letter, nor would we necessarily get every letter exactly, but it would be an excellent starting point.
TL;DR substitution cipher is highly insecure.
Hey op, I had a similar project a few years ago. Mentioning what that anon up there said, what I did was create characters for letters that were frequently paired together. Double L had its own character, "and" had its own character, anything that pairs with H, etc. Codes were my hobby at the time. It was fun but useless.
Prove to me, using only science, that science is real.
Prove math/logic are real using only math/logic.
Pro tip: you can't
"durr it disproves causality", so it's usable in basically any argument to deny a conclusion. someone's been insisting to me it's "scientifically proven" and linking to a wiki page that links to a hundred other pages with a hundred more apparently relevant links.
can /sci/ please summarize it so i can get over these people.
>so it's usable in basically any argument to deny a conclusion.
It's a theory of mechanics of thing in the world. It's applicable to a very particular realm of things and it's a mathematical framework in the first place, which physicists use daily. And it has applications for microscopic chemistry or also solid state physics.
Too tiresome to give a general summary - you'll just have more questions than gain, if you're so vague.
How true is this?
this shit is philosophical as fuck
I can point a gun as you and make you bark like a dog too
at the end of the fucking day, reality is the only thing that matters, people who write about these articles and retard 19 year olds complaining about gender will be, in the very end, just that. A group of people who nobody really cares about and who's echo chambers run wild as long as no opposition stands in the way
and since the case is so trivial, who the fuck cares
Tensor, second order tensor? Wth is this all about?
What's the scientific explanation for these numbers?
Why don't we just throw all our nuclear waste into the sun?