Jump to content

ahmet

Senior Members
  • Posts

    404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by ahmet

  1. well, hereby within this last message,I understand that it was recommended to me to send them at least one sample. 

    ok. to be honest at a time,I had uploaded to tune core but none had interested in that :) :) . (meanwhile, you did not say anthing whether it should be competitive (but I mean whether just natural voice is accepable for instance) it was only natural voice and I do not think that it would be so much popular ...however this depends on the ryhthm and background musics.

    okay,I shall do your advice. I shall specify the music (but again only natural voice :) )

    I shall (try to) recontact to thrace musics

     

     

    hey sensei,do you have any music video/clip??

    some details: I believe that achievement and reputation are two diferent definitions. I shall definitely concentrate on achievement rather than having a well known reputation,of course reputation is  nevertheless important but not aim. 

  2. I am only responding to the title (nothing else,because I have not read any else comments under this thread)

    while it is interesting ..it also seems rational. because imo everyone believes that they deserve it:

    though, it is interesting because here in turkey ,anymore, one teacher's salary is not higer than even one security staff who has high school degree. 

    all teachers here have to hold at least BSc or BE degree. what is more according to forthcoming or existing procedures , this will not be enough. 

     

  3. 1 hour ago, Sensei said:

    .costs of making professional looking video clip for YouTube... ?

    yyep! :) :)

    ahmet doesn't understand that majority of people don't earn money from YouTube.

    maybe :)  I give the probability to  your implication  that you claimed;  most of those musicians would earn money via concerts or other but similar activities ( also including advertisements incomes ) 

    1 hour ago, Sensei said:

    To have return from $100k investment in making video clip, he would have to get 100m

    but maybe you are missing a point :) I am definitely dealing with POPular musics. Generally these type of musics has already had 100 milllion views or more than that.

    but here one idea that would normally prove that you would be right if you had thought so: "no guarantee (of >=100m views)" ,presumably as this detail is not clear the producer companies do not contact every nominators (like me). there are some other probabilities for instance they might consider fake personalities/accounts contacting them.

    I tried to contact one or two companies but could not get revert back unfortunately ,thus I thought so. but I am unsure whether really I have chance. because now I am 30 years old.:(

     I nevertheless think one point: if the process is really so much expensive ,how do new nominators  be able to succeed? ,interesting.

  4. On 6/26/2020 at 12:00 AM, Enthalpy said:

    Hi Ahmet,
    just some thoughts...

    Very (extremely) few people achieve to live from music. Even less as a composer. You better make software: easier, well paid, many jobs. Violin professors have hundreds of students in their career, one is more talented and trains seriously, and becomes her or himself a professor. Sometimes, this exceptional student is even more exceptional and earns his living by playing music rather than teaching it. These are the orchestra musicians. Soloists are even much rarer, composers too. How many composers does a concert need?

    Presently, Covid-19 is an absolute disaster for all performing arts. No concerts, or concerts without public, meaning less incomes for the orchestra. Most musicians are not on the permanent payroll, so they get no engagement at all. Playing on the street is presently no-no in many countries. Youtube brings zilch to standard musicians.

    Romania is a fantastic place to hear music. But to play it? People from Romania and Moldova go to Germany and Austria to live from music.

    What kind of music? A few people manage to live from folkloric / cigani / klezmer / etc music. That could work better than classical music. It's often not a first choice. Illenyi Katica, Rusanda Panfili... are all excellent classical musicians who jumped into folkloric music to make a living. Or do you mean songs for the TV?

    hi Entalphy, it was very nice to read your this post. but the thing I would it to be understood is probably different." musician" definition , of course, includes many descriptions. but the one I would give as a sample was someone like Akcent, Lalgerino, Zack Knight, etc. :) :):) 

    at a time when I told this to someone, one of my friend said "it is really expensive" 

    I said "oh my dear, how much?" :) :) :)

    then he said more than (as I remember correctly (if I remember it correctly) 100.000 $ - 10000$ 

    does anyone agree to this idea? 

  5. On 7/6/2020 at 10:22 AM, Ken123456 said:

    Could God use a scientist to help save the world from a devastating destruction but the scientist was not a believer in God?

    I see one (trial) question and one expresion 

    1) you try to ask a question but;

    2)presumably  your own expression refutes the intented aim :) 

  6. it might be a controversial issue what good means :) 

    but there might be some tools for you to define your own goodness :) 

    (e.g: if, to you, "good" means high IF ,then sjr might be a tool for you. 

    and if "good" means "relevance" then, to me, you have to check each listed journals by your own )

    there are some other databases like DOAJ , SCI ,...)

    the time period for publication is changing from one journal to another journal. But if you provide more context, then maybe we might help you better.

     

     

     

     

     

  7. 2 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

    Science projects can be expensive. Just look at how costly NASA is and even putting NASA aside, other science projects are expensive too such as the Hadron Collider in France/Switzerland. And back to NASA, they're now apparently going to try to create Oxygen on Mars, which will be expensive. 

    Anyway, as expensive as pursuing science projects might be, a great benefit to putting more money into science is that doing so will create more jobs. If we're going to pursue science projects we obviously need people to do the projects and that means more jobs, so pursuing more science projects would mean more employment.

    from my view, contributing to science is, of course entertaining. but one should differentiate something and take decision accordingly. 

    1) to me, science requires a bit education , but not higher (i.e. MSc and doctoral programs are not mandatory to contribute science. though,at least high school or primary school degree seems mandatory )

    2) higher degrees generally require strict efforts , but to obtain a higher degree will not mean a parallel employment . 

    3) This might be meaningless but I think that some cases might be relative from country to another country. For instance, while learning an amount of information might be useful in an A country, this might be very useless in a B country even if all aspects of the relevance of that information be same (e.g. how it is being taught)

     

    if you are a young one and looking for some suggestions on how to select something on this issue:

    then please take your decisions by your own and feel free please in the time of decision. 

    and I can say that this would be a general case according to my personal approach based on my experiences. 

    "generally the type of education that contains active applications ( in real) life brings more job options."

     

     

     

    a recommendation: I think one another forum might be more suitable for this thread. While there is a branch "political sciences" among the branches of scientific classification and although  these days this issue is getting to be more popular and/or important time to time,I think that the processes in doing and contributing to science and their results might not be limited with political researches (i.e.politics) 

  8. 26 minutes ago, francis20520 said:

    I like this ask this question regarding implications of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems.

    That is, from what I have read one of the implications of Gödel is that either "Maths is inconsistent" or  that "we will NEVER know everything".

    What does "maths is inconsistent" mean?? Can you give an example where maths is inconsistent?? Have they discovered such an inconsistency??

    And does this mean that for example, we can never discover the smallest particle or the smallest time segment or whether the universe is finite or infinite?? What does it mean????

    hereby, within this comment, I recommend the moderation to move this thread to another forum. (maybe,speculations or one of other forums might be more suitable)

     

  9. 3 minutes ago, joigus said:

     

     

    Oh, really? I hadn't noticed. I thought we were talking about the history of pudding (sigh).

    hahahahhahhaa :) :) :) :) :) :) :) hahahhaa 

    ok. I really spent enough effort to help the OP. 

    sorry, but I won't reply anymore (at least until some contexts more be provided by OP)

    but already beacuse of laughing ...  I suppose :) :) :) I can't by by now.

    :) :) :) 

     

  10. 18 minutes ago, joigus said:

     

    This is the line that you misunderstood, split into independent lines:

    0+0=0

    0+1=1

    1+1=2

     

    then how will you reach the title's implication: 2+2=5 with your this map??

    23 minutes ago, joigus said:

    The OP has a simple enough question about Gödel's theorem and simple relations between real numbers

    I think this is your own supposition. check also simply wikipedia here with a part of this original title here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#:~:text=G%C3%B6del's%20incompleteness%20theorems%20are%20two,capable%20of%20modelling%20basic%20arithmetic.&text=The%20second%20incompleteness%20theorem%2C%20an,cannot%20demonstrate%20its%20own%20consistency.

    25 minutes ago, joigus said:

    All of this when the question had already been answered to the satisfaction of the OP, as I understand.

    this is your (own) understanding. :) 

    28 minutes ago, joigus said:

    Algebraic topology?

    if the question was relevant,then no problem for me.

    I recommend that you check the ordered/given references and try to correlate them well. but of course, this requires mathematical sight. I marked as OP's own reference in paranthesis.All are relevant each other and in the conformity.

     

    [1] N. BOURBAKI Elements of Mathematics Algebra I Chapters 1 - 3 ISBN 2-7056-5675-8 (Hermann) ISBN 0-201-00639-1 (Addison-Wesley) Library of Congress catalog card number LC  72- 5558 American Mathematical Society (MOS) Subject Classification Scheme (1970) : 15-A03, 15-A69, 15-A75, 15-A78 Printed in Great Britain page: 96-99 

    [2]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms#Addition  (this is the reference that OP provided. please check carefully the axioms here such as "Equivalent axiomatizations"  check also please the note What you see here,in the OP's this link/reference)

    [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#:~:text=G%C3%B6del's%20incompleteness%20theorems%20are%20two,capable%20of%20modelling%20basic%20arithmetic.&text=The%20second%20incompleteness%20theorem%2C%20an,cannot%20demonstrate%20its%20own%20consistency. ( a piece of OP's title )

     

    general comment: this is a mathematics forum. 

     

     

  11. @studiot check please once again my previous post. (with the stated/given page infromation please, because it seems  somebody who claims that he was well educated but not aware of 0 divisors of a circle. )

    17 minutes ago, studiot said:

    Thank you for offering this however I think Bourbaki is way ouside the OP comfort zone.

     

    I disagree to this idea. because our keywords seems suitable: (* incompleteness)

    however,

    17 minutes ago, studiot said:

    I was trying to interpret your response in the light of simpler mathematics.

     

    I have commonly experienced in mathematics, something (which seems even very  simple ),can cause big discussions. 

    so, I do not recommend thinking like this : "this is so much simple,I can easily resolve it" ,

    Nah :) :) :)

  12. 1 hour ago, joigus said:

    Totally agree. +1. Nobody understood division by zero here, except you, @ahmet.

     

    check please this resource [1] ,in fact it is same with the above. 

     

    [1]     N. BOURBAKI Elements of Mathematics Algebra I Chapters 1 - 3 ISBN 2-7056-5675-8 (Hermann) ISBN 0-201-00639-1 (Addison-Wesley) Library of Congress catalog card number LC  72- 5558 American Mathematical Society (MOS) Subject Classification Scheme (1970) : 15-A03, 15-A69, 15-A75, 15-A78 Printed in Great Britain page: 96-99 

  13. 1 minute ago, joigus said:

    I'm well educated enough to withhold my opinion of what you (or any other member of this forum) are or are not

    then,I can say that being well educated will not bring you a guarantee to know everything :) :) 

    anyway,as I see that your comments are going to be off topic,maybe I had better go until seeing a relevant comment. 

  14. ok.it is easy.

    0+0+0+0= 0.(0+0+0+0+0)

    0(1+1+1+1)=0.(1+1+1+1+1)

    simplify 0s.

    the n 4=5 ,you can similarly obtain 1=0 etc.

    the core reason is effective here.

    50 minutes ago, studiot said:

    All I see is your statement 0+0 = 0*2,  which is true since anything times 0 is still 0.

    What I don't see is a formal continuation of your line of reasoning to the end.

    have you understood the theorems ? I meant that you would not be able to write the simplification in that way. 

    On 6/27/2020 at 5:40 PM, francis20520 said:

    I am a layman trying to understand above theorems. This could be a stupid question. 

    Does these theorems imply that we actually cannot prove that 2+2 = 4???

    Is this one of the implications of these theorems???

    meanwhile,apart from our conversation, while I do not know specifically Gödel's that mentioned teorem, as I know, incompleteness is different subject (i.e. potentially irrelevant)

    one of our issues is from Algebra (general algebra) and the other one is presumably from functional analysis. 

    of course,they are of intersections  but specifically these two issues seems to me irrelevant. 

  15. 2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

    @ahmet I interpret the dots "." 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.

    to be honest, I did not understand the equation as it stands correctly so,I wrote my supposition/prediction. sorry if I failing.

    and how would we reach 0=1 in that way?

  16. 24 minutes ago, studiot said:

    When you finish the job, (ie write out the simplification) how is your conclusion reached?

     

    theorem 1)

    when <H,+,.> is a circle. a,b ϵ H-{0H} , if a.b=0H   ,then a,b are called zero division of H circle. if tere is no such elements ,then  H is called as it has had no this property.

    theorem 2:) H is a circle, and ∀ x,y,z ϵ H , for ∃       x 0H  ,if this; , x.y=x.z <=> y=z   condition is satisfied then ,we can conclude that simplification exists in H.

    theorem 3) if H is a circle, to be able to apply simplification , theorem 1 is sufficient and required  (<=>).

     

    thus, you cannot write the simplification in that way because of theorem 1 ,theorem 2 and theorem 3 (check please theorem 2).

  17. On 6/27/2020 at 7:17 PM, francis20520 said:

    Thanks for your quick responses. 

    I don't much about  axiomatic structures in Mathematics. Only things I know is what I read on Wikipedia.

    Just out of curiosity, is it PROVED in mathematics (like proving the Pythagoras theorem) that 2 + 2 = 4??

    I.e. 0 + 0 = 0. 0 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1 = 2. Are these Axioms in mathematics???

    Or is there a proof??? What is it called?

    this is wrong as I know. because of some rules in algebra (general algebra)

    in fact you tried to write

    0+0= 0(1+1)= 0 .2 if we would simplify both parts then we would find that (0=2)

    or equivalently

    0*0=0 

    0*0=0+0

    0*0=0(1+1) 

    simplify 0 at both parts. then 0=2 which is wrong. you cannot do this , because of the rules in algebra. 

    (that mentioned rule/property is (presumably) this one: for all elemnts in R,Q,Z that are not equal to zero (other than zero), the multiplication of two elements  will never be zero)  

    that mathematically said 

    ∀ x,y ϵ R or Q or Z and x≠0 ,y≠0 --> x.y≠0

     

  18. On 6/6/2020 at 4:12 PM, Sorrow said:

    So to say we cannot reach  a godlike form. Well however last edit.

    no. but as it said, I think that this subject extends to "belief" rather than being biological subject.

    but to me, as both in physical direction and biological, I do not think that something can be happened two times in the same form in general

     

    On 6/16/2020 at 9:12 AM, druS said:

    Defining "life" gets interesting and does not have much consensus.

    • Ability to reproduce/heritable information
    • Metabolism/Homeostasis (organisms can maintain themselves)
    • It is generally considered that cells are the fundamental building block of life.

    While "life" is not well defined you will find that there is pretty strong agreement on the items you mention:

    • virus are not life forms
    • "seeds" are gametes - a step in the reproduction of certain life forms.
    • Prions are proteins, not life (though proteins are a good example of emergence in the world if life forms)

    On the whole biology (life) emerges from chemistry but chemicals are not life. Molecules are not really "destroyed" but the can be transformed into other molecules. Atoms are not life and on-the-whole are not destroyed (physicists will provide plenty of corrections to that statement).

    Interestingly the atoms in your body largely have been around for billions of years and started as star dust. The origin of matter and atoms themselves, is another fascinating topic.

    thanks for clarification/explanation. I think that the destruction of all the things is possible. (here, including atoms,molecules,too)

  19. 37 minutes ago, iNow said:

    It’s challenging to parse this salad of words, but you appear to suggest that only some users of psychotropic drugs experience the aforementioned misfires of time encoding in their brain. If so, I agree. That’s why I said “tend to,” as in “there’s a tendency for this to happen,” not a mandate or requirement. 

    yeah,yes I did mean so. sorry for missing detail. but again .. not all of them will have tendency. (maybe there might be a scientific research about this?)

    although,I have no expertise in this area,I know that not all of them are typical. there are some content that might be relevant to this issue for instance some keywords like GABA ,glutamate, dopamine,etc (I am unable to dominate all the content but..). I also  can mean that some sympoms are interferrable ,but not all of symptoms ,exactly and of course. 

  20. 7 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Folks who use psychotropic drugs like pot and other mild hallucinogens also tend to experience “misfires” in mapping time to current experiences and the brain seems to miscode the event as “future” or “past.”

    presumably, you forgot to mention only some of that patients (not all of them are so) or otherwise,I can be sure that you are not psychiatrist/a medical doctor who is specialized in psychiatry

×
×
  • 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.