Jump to content

Ghideon

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1411
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    12

Ghideon last won the day on July 3

Ghideon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

299 Beacon of Hope

2 Followers

About Ghideon

  • Rank
    Organism

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sweden
  • College Major/Degree
    M.Sc. Computer Science and Engineering
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

5055 profile views
  1. If the link I provided does not work (it works for me) Google for 'The Map of Mathematics' Poster by Dominic Walkman. I'm not sure about posting the actual picture here on the forum due to copyrights. The link again: https://www.flickr.com/photos/95869671@N08/32264483720
  2. I'll try not to interrupt your discussion, just a question: do you mean centre of mass of balls only, centre of mass of the balls + the box the balls bounce around in? Other?
  3. Here are some lecture notes starting with -Review of discrete probability theory (5 pages) This may guide you towards what parts of math you wish/need to check. -Shannon's measure of information (15 pages) kind of "Mathematical relations between probabilities and information content" http://www.isiweb.ee.ethz.ch/archive/massey_scr/adit1.pdf I've not checked the details of the pdf but it looks decent; found it by searching for university course material for information theory. Note: following is based on a mix of formal studies and practical experience from engineering. It may or may not match what an active scientist would say. Maybe a table of concepts, bottom up*, and corresponding examples of related computer science task or concepts will help: Overview: 1: Information Theory: Entropy of information. Mathematical foundation. Practical examples: Theoretical capacity of a network connection. lossy vs lossless data compression, parity checking, error correction 2: Information Representation: What is used to represent data, what does the bits mean at a basic level Practical examples: Low level protocols. Character sets such as unicode. Concepts; line endings, byte orders 3: Information structure: Data structures usually tied to programming and algorithms Practical examples: What are hash tables, linked lists, trees, graphs 4: Higher level information organisation: organisation such as databases. Practical example: SQL database, Data lake Study: When I first studied computer science the order was 3, 2, 4 + 1 (4 and 1 was parallel IIRC). Right before 3 was some programming and algorithms was immediately after 3. I guess you could be a good programmer with knowledge of only (3) but knowledge of the other helps. *) 1-4 are my rough way of ordering the things for this discussion. There are overlaps, there are examples where the order is different and there are many cases where 1-4 would be nested.
  4. Not sure I grasp the idea completely but maybe the "the map of mathematics" could act as a starting point or act as a rough guide? It is a one page drawing showing how many concepts such as pure mathematics, applied mathematics, number systems, topology and many other fits together: https://www.flickr.com/photos/95869671@N08/32264483720
  5. My very short answer: A value of a random variable. Let's say you receive a symbol "1". If this is the only possible symbol the fact that you received it does not give you information. But if this symbol is one of two possible, "0" and "1", then the reception of symbol "1" may contain information. So having more that one symbol is a requirement, but not sufficient. Lets say you receive the pattern "111111...". The probability of the symbol "1" is 1. Again there is no information. But if random sequences are allowed, for example "00", "01", "10", "11" then we may use these sequences to represent information. So conceptually information can be seen as a value form of a random variable. The above is an attempt at an extremely short introduction to information theory, which is tied to discrete probability theory. Most important early contributor was Claude E. Shannon and his paper “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”, dealing quantitatively with the concept of “information”. Shannons concepts and the mathematics he used to describe information and to measure information content is a remarkable contribution. I believe it's tricky to find any areas of IT where his work does not contribute. Wikipedia* has links to some concepts related to your question. Feel free to ask additional questions. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Communication For an early predecessor of Shannon, working on sinus signals and frequencies, see Hartley: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Hartley
  6. Ok. Let's pretend for this post the stone golem has limestone properties. We throw person at nearly the speed of sound against a limestone figure several hundred meters tall. The effect is similar to a bug on a windshield: "splat". The information you provide does not help: the physics of the real world lacks predictive power in the fiction world of Zoro.
  7. You asked for a physical analysis and I choose the word "magic" for the things that seems to contradict the physics in the real world. You are free to provide a list of the proper definitions and terms to use. No. It means that the mainstream science of the real world have no predictive power and is not useful to explain the magical events in his creations. Yes, I can create various kinds of flexible and hard constructions out of stone. But they would not possess intelligence, move by free will and talk as in the manga. I would have to visit Pica and press him on the source of the knowledge he possess. Unfortunately Pica is a work of fiction, my skills from the real world does not explain the results of his abilities in the manga. Ok. Then the author seems to have made mistakes in the frames you posted: - The golem seems to look down, in the direction of the approaching Zoro. That is not possible if the golem is moving incredibly slow. - The golem seems to talk, that means some part of it moves fast enough to move air at a frequency the others could hear. Or it could mean that the author did not intend the story to make sense physically. The author maybe wanted to create entertaining scenarios. That implies that mr Echiro Oda creates excellent* and entertaining manga. It does not say much how to apply science to explain or predict outcome in his work of fiction. Thanks, yet another confirmation of Conjecture**: For every explanation from the fiction world there will be an equal and opposite counter-explanation from the real world telling how physics does not apply. The result is zero; no new knowledge about the events from a scientific point of view. I'll leave to the interested reader to provide evidence and a model. *) (maybe worth taking a closer look?) **) Ghideon's third law of motion in magical related fiction (?) I guess we get the first two later in this thread if it remains open.
  8. I agree. I think the most entertaining are the ones that explain "just enough" to create an internally logical setup. Telling the audience that wormhole technology exists and can be used for travel; ok. Trying to explain wormhole internal functions in terms of quantum mechanics; no thanks. Background information such as how society developed due with the help of wormholes could be ok. An analogy that I think works; Tolkien created fictive languages for his works and I believe he created extensive linguistic background information. But I don't think he explained the physics allowing the various large creatures, such as dragons, to fly or spit fire. I do not think a section "Physics and the aerodynamic properties of the Fellbeast and its Nazgûl rider" would have been very entertaining. I think you also touch on another angle; knowing your audience. Analogy; if an average reader of a certain manga have not yet studied for instance drag and Bernoulli's principle it does not add much value to create a fiction world coherent with both magic and aerodynamics. Let alone explaining all of it to the readers. If the background is important and maybe gathers interest from fans that could be published in separate volumes. Cool! Maybe you're writing the plot for a part II of the 1951 Sci-Fi The Thing from Another World? * I've seen a related idea where (optional) gene manipulation allowed humans to survive for extended periods eating grass and leaf. Good thing for mercenaries on under cover missions on a jungle planet. That author missed the photosynthesis though. Why? I want to see pictures of turtles and crabs with photosynthetic shells next 😀 *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World, about a malevolent plant-based alien (James Arness). It's based on a novel and other adoptions exists.
  9. The old man cracks a stone, not a stone golem. The golem has the power to move and talk, magical properties that I do not know how they affect the stone's physical properties. If the golem can bend its limbs, how soft is it? Does it crack or does it cut like flesh? How does these magical properties stand against a magical sword? Again: After that repetition, let's try another angle at science: Ok. You just need to provide the mathematical formulas that models the physics in this fantasy world. We need a comparison to the real world laws of physics and the numerical values for parameters, constants or conversion factors etc. With a model we can calculate, simulate and/or predict the outcome of certain events in the fantasy world. In case the parameters are not officially available I guess you can request them from the author. We also need some way to make observations in the fantasy world so that our predictions can be tested. Note that the above is both a reasonable and realistic request. And maybe also not too far from "real science"; scientists run simulations of real physical events, where sometimes some parameters are unknown or aspects of the real world are not known. Comparisons with observations are made and parameters may be adjusted. Simulations in cosmology is one area of science I think of. Simplified mathematical models are also quite common when dealing with stone golems and swords. Games such as dungeons & dragons* contains the mathematics of such interactions. Intention is of course to have a balanced game play and a reasonable chance to analyse and predict a situation; do I attack or run? What are the odds that I can take on the golem with my sword? Should I hide and wait for backup? Is the golem immune to magic, should our wizard friend stand back? etc. Again, the creator of the world and/or specific adventure need to provide the numerical parameters required before we can roll the dice and observe the outcome. The "science" aspect of this is that I guess some basic skills of statistics and probabilities are needed to create the world in such a way that it is playable and not an unpredictable random mess. For a more physics related example we could use computer games as an analogy. If we would create a Zoro 3rd person action game, what parameters would we feed the physical engine to allow for a fun game where the stone golem boss is not too hard and not too easy to beat? "Observations" in this case could be the beta testers; does the physics of the world in the game match real physics enough? Expectations of fans of the series? Is the game "fun"? Does authors and other stakeholders approve? And some science: Do we try to be too realistic so the game requires too expensive hardware, limiting the market? What does the latest papers in computer science say; are there any new and novel algorithms that we can use, allowing this game to stand out against the competition? As you see there are a few thinks to consider when trying to apply science to the events in the manga. I really understand that such discussions could be quite interesting, for instance among fans that wish to create a fan-made game true to the canon of the series. But it may take some research to get the details needed, can you provide them? *) I'm not that much into such games these days, I think you can have a look at D&D 5th Edition Compendium
  10. Since this is the lounge I'll do some less rigorous analysis showing why science is of no use. Observations in the movie clip. 1: Zoro does not seem to follow the trajectory of a massive object; heigh above ground seems maintained. 2: Zoro does not seem affected by air resistance; speed is not reduced during the flight 3: There is atmosphere on the world where the fight takes place. 1: means that (a) Zoro is either massless* and hence unaffected by gravity or (b) neutrally buoyant in the atmosphere, like as a hot air balloon. 2&3: means Zoro could be (c) extremely dense, having extreme momentum. But (c) can't be compatible with 1, massive object fall down. And (b) is not compatible with 2, balloons stop quickly when thrown in air. (a) is pointless, a massless Zoro, swords included, would have zero effect on a stone golem; there is no kinetic energy or momentum that can affect the golem. That means Zoro travels through air by magic because the described airstrip is physically impossible. I do not know how magic affects drag and Bernouilli's principle, so again: Side note: That fact the manga story is failing to describe physically probable action does not mean I can't see it as entertaining. I enjoy entertaining stories, if the canon of the universe where the events take place allow magic, faster than light travel etc I don't care how impossible that might be according to mainstream science. I just chose to not mix my interest in science and engineering into the events of fiction and fantasy in the story. *) I know that would mean a photon speed of c in vacuum and massless bodies of macroscopic size does not exist AFAIK; creating one would require magic. But this is the lounge after all, and we will get to the point anyway.
  11. Personal opinion: The display of magical creature (stone golem) and breaking of Newtons laws in the movie clip makes me think that laws of physics, as we know them, are not part of the canon of this manga. An analysis from a scientific or physics point of view is not of any use.
  12. Here is rough idea for a layout. Description of what a dimension is in physics and maybe math. Followed by List of short descriptions/comparisons related to other sciences, for instance computer science. Example to illustrate; partly taken from Mordred : In this forum "dimension" have a specific meaning. In physics a dimension is a mathematical term meaning an independent variable or other mathematical object such as a group or tensor. In particle physics it often related to an effective degree of freedom. Other areas of science may have related but not identical definition and usage of "dimension": -Computer science ...
  13. @ahmet I interpret the dot "." as end of a sentence. Reformatting the above using separate lines for each sentence: 0+0=0 0+1=1 1+1=2 That seems to be ok examples to illustrate the question asked? I do not see 0=2. Maybe I miss something.
  14. I guess this is intended for the physics section and should focus on physics? (I've seen confusion about dimensions in computer science, only loosely related to math and physics. Some clarifications I have in mind could maybe fit a general section sticky but probably not in physics.)
  15. Agree. Hopefully some of the advice given above will help more than relying on lottery.
×
×
  • 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.