Jump to content

Trurl

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Trurl

  • Rank
    Quark

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.constructorscorner.net

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    applied mathematics

Recent Profile Visitors

8074 profile views
  1. The title should read from y = 0 to 1. I am looking for a graphing software that will draw graphs in real time. Such features as panning, zooming, and redrawing. I used Mathematica put I get "snapshots" of the graph. I want a graph that redraws and acts like a CAD software. I not sure that it exists, but I am putting it on my wishlist. As you can see by the picture of the graphs, examination of the graph is a challenge. But I hypothesis that x is the last value of the graph where y goes from 0 to 1.
  2. http://www.constructorscorner.net/Files/20201024RSA290.pdf This is the last of my attempts. If you graph the function simply: x (the small prime factor) occurs where the graph goes from zero to 1 (y-value). I think that this eliminates the value of x to a manageable amount of test values. Is this useful? And does a graph of a function faster than trial and error division?
  3. And that reduces to x^4= 0. Can you solve THAT polynomial equation? That is exactly what I am saying: the traditional simplification rules do not solve the equations accurately. I’m saying there must be new rules needing discovered that would solve solutions that were once impossible. Like calculus was discovered as a need to solve physics. Graph Y1graph and Y2graph and see the solution of pnp. We have more options with a plot. We can see where they intersect. I know the equations don’t seem to be of any value, but a graph opens up new approaches. Is a computer plot in polynomial time? I don’t know if it is simpler then recursion, but it seems fast. When I was in college we drew a shear diagram and graph it using graphical calculus to find the moment diagram. Pretty cool finding the area does what is computational hard. I do have graphs and code I’d like to share.
  4. N = x*y Let N = 85 (N^2 + x^3) / N = N + (x^2 / (N^2/ x + x) * N Y1graph = (N^2 + x3) / N Y2graph = N + (x^2 / (N^2/ x + x) * N Y1graph - Y2graph < 1 I can graph them where it intersects. I can also equate the inequality,but I want to solve for x knowing only N. Not plugging in N and x. I was thinking I could use the derivative of each side. Until x^3 = 6x in the first equation I gave you in my first post. This would not work with the ygraph because their graphs are only equal when N = 85. I don’t have any clue how to solve for x. The rules of simplification I know have failed me.
  5. I want to solve for x. Yes I know that I did not isolate x, but I know the equation has a solution. I cannot get Mathematica to solve it. I was wondering if there is anyway to solve such equations. It is a recurring theme. It is not like a text book problem that is designed to be solved. I keep making complex equations I can’t solve. I don’t know of any way. The rules I have learned aren’t sufficient to solve. The equation is simple enough,, but I thought it would have an easy solution. Does this equation mean anything to you?
  6. How do we solve polynomial equations? I only know how to simplify them. If you could solve this polynomial say N = 85 it would earn a million dollars. Remember who gave it to you. x^3 = N^2 * (x^2/(N^2/x + x)) Solve for x
  7. Well I cannot describe a Utopian society. What I am trying to describe the best possible Earth. Mainly peaceful, less crime, freedom of thought, and no suffering ring. Obviously I have no idea how it works. But can you achieve it without religion? Can science alone do it? And how would you use science to accomplish this? I feel the scientist disregards religion because of what they have experienced growing up. Leave out the miracles such as walking on water. Scientists are more concerned with the way religious people behave. The think they are simple following a bunch of rules and it isn’t true. They think we are stupid and make their own rules But nonbelievers don’t realize they follow the rules because we chose to. It isn’t just about following rules it is a way of life. So a hammer doesn’t smash the hand holding it does? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people? I know just about any science achievement can be misused. But you just proved my point that properly used science is beautiful. But it cannot improve the world by itself. Religious cuts have contributed almost nothing beneficial to humanity over the span of about 3000 years. Worshiping an imagined God just serves to generate more superstition, myth, fallacy, and plain nonsense. Science has provided most of what we depend on daily, for healthy living, and convenience, not to mention wealth. Without scientific discoveries we would be dead within 3-4 weeks (think chlorine to disinfect water, the Haber Process for the generation of fertilizer , etc).” What history are you reading? Religion is mainly responsible for the world now. The Renaissance, The education system. The Constitution. WWII. And remember a lot of science is the result of war. And we fund science for profit. Prescriptions, medical. Didn’t you see the movie where Tony Stark saw all the profit he made on weapons being used for war?
  8. I thought this topic would bring up the limitations of science. I don’t mean a limitation of thought. But does not one scientific solution lead to more problems. Like the atomic bomb it ends war with Japan but adds the potential to destroy the planet. And I don’t think the scientist are at fault because they have a drive to create. But no matter how smart they claim to be they never consider how others will use the invention. They are foolish. I’m not saying this to insult them. They are smart but so stupid in other ways. I saw the interview with Dr. Fauci and he predicts Covid 4 years ago. Doesn’t this sound an alarm? I think a utopian world will happen when we learn to control science. And by control I don’t mean oppressing it I mean an agreement not to misuse it. That would happen by the attitudes and belief of man. But how do you propose to do that without religion? I mean you could use psychology or sociology. But would these social sciences then be considered religion. It is not the laws of religion most scientist abject to but the spiritual parts. “Do not murder,” makes sense to the scientist. Thoughts
  9. I asked both questions to ask if science is enough to “fix” the world. As scientist (amateur include) we want a better world. But do we work in vain? For those old enough to remember the start of the internet, remember when people called it ideal because everything was anonymous. No race, no gender, only knowledge. I am interesting to see what everyone posts. What if the best world for humans is chaotic? I mean a world we live in. And maybe it has the potential to be a utopia but we can’t reach it. Is science going to realize the potential of a world that already exists? And you want you science to do well, but is it enough. And what as a scientist is the goal of your creations if we can’t fix the world? Like one post said is it an end in itself? And if science could not reach the utopia would you consider religion?
  10. Can science produce a utopian world? and What is your personal goal to the science you do? (edited by mod)
  11. To me we could debate this forever without one convincing the other. But you are a scientist, isn’t what isn’t proven, not understood, the unknown the unexplainable what drives the scientist. He wants to cure illness, understand the physical world, and improve his knowledge. i don’t see where religion would hinder those things. It may actually augment it. i just think into the future when someone scientist walks on water, he will say look I am the first to walk on water. And peers will say, Uh Oh. My question to you is why does your science rely only what we know presently. Man relying only on his own knowledge is foolish.I don’t mean not making informed or best decisions. I mean to you it makes sense but you have incomplete knowledge. This is everybody. If the science is limited by us it will never give answers. Technology does not always improve the world. Science still needs righteousness.
  12. What if the science existed to control the displacement of water? The shape of Jesus sole to a depth of water to support his weight. If you could control how a force is displaced you need less force to move. A rocket ship wastes so much energy to release pressure to lift. I’m not saying such technology exists. It would probably involve controlling atoms. I’m just saying: Jesus does it it’s a fairy tale; Luke Skywalker does it it’s the force.
  13. What if religion and science did not contradict each other but supported each other. Say: Jesus walked on water. Not possible he would sink. But scientifically the area of his sandals displaced the water below him straight down until the water displaced below his feet equals his weight? From your perspective you see religion as wrong, but you forget you are believing that science explains everything. You forget you are believing as much in science as someone is in Jesus. Michio Kanu says both sides are wrong in that they can’t prove anything. So so we argue this instead of working on meaningful science.
  14. Trump did shut down businesses even if it meant hurting the economy.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.