Jump to content

Ghideon

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    2050
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    20

Ghideon last won the day on March 28

Ghideon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

461 Beacon of Hope

3 Followers

About Ghideon

  • Rank
    Primate

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

6760 profile views
  1. Unfortunately the video doesn't seem to be public, was that intentional? When I click the link YouTube responds with: "The video is unavailable" "This video is private."
  2. Apply* Newton's laws F=ma (2nd law) and when an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A (3rd law). You will find that the mass is always m, or in other words, that the ratio m/m1=1. Your definition will result in F1=F, m1=m and a1=a or an unphysical situation according to Newton. I may get some time to post an example later if you wish. *) correctly applying them that is.
  3. Maybe this helps: As predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger*, the speed of light and the speed of gravitational waves is identical. On what scientific grounds do you base your doubts regarding distances in space? *) https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0145/P1700294/007/ApJL-MMAP-171017.pdf
  4. Ok. Feel free to post an updated version for further discussion. You can report the issue, edit the post (within 60 minutes) or post a followup with clarifications. FTFY: The quote of Ghideon is unfortunately incorrect. Red strikethrough does not belong there: Thanks for observing that!
  5. You are assuming P=NP . It is equally valid* to assume that P≠NP . How does the proof handle that? *) Or even better, according to a majority of researchers in a poll: https://mags.acm.org/communications/201205?pg=12#pg12
  6. I agree. And even if the medium is in a state in which is stable it may be destroyed by accidents, failures, sabotage and other. In my opinion, no.
  7. You mean to compare these two different calculations? [math] \sqrt{-2}^{10}[/math] and [math] \sqrt{-2^{10}}[/math] The order is important and well defined. Adding parentheses explicitly to show: [math] (\sqrt{-2})^{10}[/math] and [math] \sqrt{(-2^{10})}[/math] Since the calculations are different there are two results: [math] \sqrt{-2}^{10}=-32[/math] [math] \sqrt{-2^{10}}=32[/math]
  8. from the paper: Trying to understand: The method works on equations of the form [math]n(n+2)=m[/math] , [math]n \in N, m \in N [/math] The integer [math]m[/math] is known and the method will find the unknown integer [math]n[/math] ?
  9. It depends*. "Idle", "connected to power" and "program loaded" may have different meaning. For instance ACPI** (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) standard defines several different states where CPU has power but reduced capability to perform actions. States such as Halt, Stop-Clock, Sleep (C1, C2, C3) exists on the specification. So an answer might require more details to be known to be sure with state the CPU will operate in if it has power but no means to access any device or software. I do not know if there is a standard for default state and which parts of a specific CPU th
  10. This isn't my area of expertise but I'm curious: How does your result differ from known properties of other NPC problems? What are the specific consequences that does not show up in for instance SAT** or others? If I recall correctly: under the assumption that [math]P=NP [/math] it follows that [math] NPC \approx NP=P [/math]. if any NP-complete problem can be solved quickly*, then every problem in NP can. Every problem in NP must be reducible to every NP-complete problem in polynomial time. Hence all NP-complete problems share properties; there needs to be something fundamentally new
  11. Can you summarise the proof and attach the pdf as reference? (The link just displays ads when I try to access)
  12. In my opinion it is better to provide context or to add a reference to clarify when the discussion benefits from it. For instance in this case when it is not clear if we discuss delegation in programming in general or delegation in OOP. No. And it is not what you said above: Your one-sentence definitions are vague so a reference would help.
  13. No it does not mean that.
  14. (Due to my profession) I am familiar with inheritance vs delegation in programming. It does not match your description and googling "Method inheritance by delegation" returns zero results. Maybe you could add some context to what you try to describe? Which programming language and which compiler?
  15. Ok. That means you and altaylar2000 are the same? How else can you be certain about the facts? Thanks for clearing that out.
×
×
  • 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.