For Prose

Hello SFN community,

 

Today, I am inquiring to all those who might happen upon this post who are members of the Society for Mathematical Biology for a possible endorsement letter. I am currently an undergraduate student majoring in both fields and would like to become a member. Unfortunately, I attend a smaller university and have tried enlisting the endorsement from faculty that may already be a member but have found none.

 

If anyone would be willing to endorse my entry into the Society for Mathematical Biology, I would greatly appreciate it. I already have a letter from my supervisor confirming my student status. A private message would suffice. Thank you.

 

Michael Rohly

Overtone, you seem to largely ignore Chad's accusations of using emotive force, as well as clear use of informal fallacies. You should address this, as it is very difficult to read what you post.

 

Chad, can you tell me more about your claim that organic food is more environmentally damaging?

I have to admit that I don't know what is "normally covered in philosophy", as asked in the OP.

Me, neither.

The responses so far are well above my expectations when I posted this. Some examples of common philosophy topics include Pascal's Wager, is there a god, do we have free will, or can we really know something.

 

I have really enjoyed pondering some of the topics you all have shared so far. It's pleasing to receive some ideas relating to more modern philosophical dealings.

It seems that a viable solution would be to figure out an equation that fits all these parameters through trial and error. We are currently learning the chain rule.

When the question states to find f, is f referring to the equation of f? Or is f defined as being f of x?

 

For added clarity, I will post a picture of the question in its original form when I get home.

Hello everyone. As the title suggests, I am searching for topics that might not be normally covered in philosophy. An example of this would be "Is everyone really entitled to his or her own opinion?".

 

Thanks for your input in advance!

So what did you make of my alternative suggestions?

What have you deduced about f(x), given f'(x) is a quadratic?

 

We don't do your homework for you, just try to offer helpful pointers in the right direction.

 

Hello everyone. I don't want the answer to this question, only for someone to help point me in the right direction.

The question is as follows:

Suppose that f is differentiable on I:= (-inf,1), such that f(x) > 0 and f'(x) = f(x)^2 for all x belonging to I. Find f knowing that f(0) = 1.

Thanks for the hints and help in advance.

I was only answering his question, not disregarding yours.

 

If the derivative of f(x) equals f(x)^2, does this mean that to find the original equation for the function, I will have to reverse differatiate (I think this is called integration in Calc 2 but I am nowhere near utilizing this yet)?

 

What have you deduced about f(x), given f'(x) is a quadratic?

To be honest, I am not sure what it means that f' is quadratic. I can only reason that you are referring to how it might be differentiated. Thanks for your time involved in this matter studiot.

What class is this?

As for a hint, [math]f'(x) = f(x)^{2}[/math] is a separable differential equation.

 

If the class doesn't assume knowledge of differential equations, then we may want to try another avenue.

It is for calculus w/ analytical geometry John. Unless differential equations is commonly referred to by some other name, I don't believe I have gotten there quite yet.

Hello everyone. I don't want the answer to this question, only for someone to help point me in the right direction.

 

The question is as follows:

 

Suppose that f is differentiable on I:= (-inf,1), such that f(x) > 0 and f'(x) = f(x)^2 for all x belonging to I. Find f knowing that f(0) = 1.

 

Thanks for the hints and help in advance.

Hello everyone,

 

If a spaceship was accelerated to the normal speed it takes to leave our atmosphere, was factors would cause the slowing of said craft? I already know a collision would obviously prevent further movement, but what else would slow it down?

 

If a zero gravity condition were to present itself, would the craft perpetually travel forever?

 

Thanks in advance for the input.

 

Michael

This link might answer your question

http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?A=1594

While an interesting article, I am not as interested in the releases the dog feels, but rather, what, if anything, the release we feel.

Arrogance is an exaggeration of ones own knowledge or skill. Genius is defined by exceptional intellect. It seems that you would have to far surpass all known standards of genius for someone in today's world to not be able distinguish a difference.

 

And since this was posted in the general philosophy category... Do you define "someone" as general population or someone within the top 10% of geniuses (hurts to even say it)?

I argue with Creationists so the people listening can see how much rubbish it is.

Well put Ringer. I have not thought about it like that before.

 

Does this mean that you restrain yourself when faced with an argument with an individual? If so, other than simply ignoring them, what is your response to avoid even conversing about the subject?

 

I live in the dirty south where Creationism runs rampant. I say this only because the subject comes up quite frequently.

 

At my university, I have to force myself to refrain from going to Philosophy Club meetings. The few times I have been, I have been the only one in the room who even really questions the existence of a higher being... In a philosophical setting...

 

This is part of the reason I have sought out others to talk to about these things, even if it means not getting the pleasure of doing it face to face.

I wonder if the scientific community might try a tactic commonly used against those who seek out negative attention. Ignore them and not feed them what they desire. While I feel Nye to be 100% accurate in his fight against archaic ways of thinking, at the end of the day, if the debate is not among scientists debating science, why even bother?

 

In my early twenties, I was very passionate about my anti-religious views. Now that I am older, I feel it to be a bit pointless. Almost as pointless as arguing politics. I of course know there are those who disagree with me, but I find much more joy in arguing science vs science and not science vs rubbish (especially when the rubbish is justified by faith).

Why does this news bother you?

 

If you dig a little deeper, you will read about how CVS has done this so they can focus resources to healthcare; makes sense to me.

I believe this to be troll started thread and feel that keeping it open will only diminish this community.

Greeting SF community

 

As I was lovingly petting my dog last night, I began to wonder what other benefits the human species receives from domestication of animals other than those made for labor, food, ect.

 

My main question is this; do so many people keep dogs or cats because it allows for "grooming"? And by grooming, I mean the act of petting, scratching, or any variation thereof.

 

Did our hominid ancestors engage in grooming like many primates do? And if so, could our lack of full body hair create a void; a void that we may only fill with the domestication of other animals who we can still receive that possible hormone release?

 

One other bit of information that I feel relates to this question. I can not speak for the general population, but I know that when my hair (on my head) is played with or "groomed", I feel a sense of release; the same sort of release of feel as I "groome" my dog.

 

Thanks in advance for all responses and opinions.

If you are not a moderator, my sincere apologies I give.

 

I am accustomed to forums wherein moderators occasionally take their power I little too seriously. It was my understanding that you thought this post was not related to science, when in fact, I only truly wanted to bring science into something that tends to be vague. I realize it is a matter of interpretation. I only wish for people to expand on what they or what those teaching them believe.

 

For example, is storytelling a derived trait or instinctual? This I do not know, as it may contain elements of both.

 

By discussing what the majority of readers consider human nature to entail on a scientific forum, my goal was to figure out where people who know many things in a vast array of different fields to chime in.

 

This all stems from an article I read. My thoughts on what human nature encapsulates differed quite strongly than that of the authors.

 

Once again, I apologize for the sarcasm.

Then how do you see it oh great moderator? My wish was to make it more of a scientific issue, hence the reason I posted this on....Scienceforums.net.

 

Delete the post if you don't think this issue relates to science, but at least let me know of another site better suited.

When defined seperately, human and nature are easily distinguishable and definable. But when you start to question what human nature is, things get a little hairy.

 

One person might say human nature involves our basic instincts, as they are fairly universal.

 

Another might say, human nature is what we have become, such as the ability for symbolic thought or complex languages.

 

My question to you, science community, is what truly defines human nature? One article in New Scientist magazine referred to storytelling to be old...as old as human nature. A reader could infer from this fragment that human nature encompasses only that which has been uniquely derived to our species. But would a stronger definition of human nature extend to what truly drives us, all of us that is.

 

I realize that this is opinion based, as no one person dictates what human nature is. Rather, I would like to hear your thoughts and possibly sources that help polish what this subject really means.

Hello everyone. As I was in the grocery store today, I noticed a thinner couple encouraging their young (probably around 10) to go and get a free chocolate cookie from the deli. A few hours later, while talking to my friend, we got to talking about child obesity. He does not contest that diet plays a large role, but he also believes that genetics are the root problem.

 

This led me to question my stance that an overweight child is only truly overweight because of the parents influence or lack thereof on diet. I am not asking for opinions on child obesity but rather, do any of you have examples of genetics being the reason for an overweight child rather than diet?

 

Please provide links and sources (more for my own further research than to validate your own claim).