Genady

pi radians is 1800

?

What do you mean, optimize? Minimize? If so, it is a very narrow programmer's perspective.

The algorithm uses the fact that if x is GCD of a and b then it is GCD of a and b % a. It looks for the GCD using recursion. For example, take 21 and 15. Look for their GCD. 21 % 15 = 6. Look for GCD of 15 and 6. 15 % 6 = 3. Look for GCD of 6 and 3. 6 % 3 = 0. Aha! Return 3, this is the GCD.

Yes, I'm quite sure. The spacetime metric outside a non-rotating spherically symmetric body is the Schwarzschild one. Not inside, though. The first object would have a bigger part of its trajectory inside the Earth than the second one. So, their trajectories would go through different spacetime metrics.

I think the trajectories would be different in both, the GR and the Newtonian gravity. Why do you think they would be identical in GR?

Sat in a room? Luxury:

Yes. None. In some places, a lot. On average, about as much as anywhere else.

Isn't humanity a nature's product?

These limitations are not new, and the progress happened anyway, averaging over time. Why would it be different this time? Why wouldn't it be another temporary fluctuation until new solutions are found?

But what is the limit? How long is 'temporary'? Does technological / societal progress mean using more or less resources?

I think, with some fluctuations here and there, it will keep advancing for the next 1-10 million years. OTOH, I don't think it ever was exponential. Rather an unevenly moving frontline.

The next after 640640 is 641641. 1001 apart. There are 30000/1001 between 000000 and 030000 as well as between 050000 and 080000. Yes, linearly, evenly. What is your question?

Regarding the galaxies and the universe, most of the exploration is done by telescopes, which are much more advanced and capable today than in the past. A completely new kind of exploration, based on gravitational waves, has been added recently. Regarding the medicine as well, diagnostics and treatments are much more advanced and capable today than in the past. Also, more affordable and accessible to wider population.

I understand that the OP does not refer to biological evolution:

Why in the future? We are exploring the galaxies and the universe now.

OK. I didn't know the OP is about the function since it didn't say so.

They don't lack it. They are spin-down with some probability amplitude and spin-up with some probability amplitude, also spin-left with some probability amplitude, spin-right with some probability amplitude, spin-toward-Andromeda with some probability amplitude, spin-toward-Mecca with some probability amplitude, etc.

The universe is real. It is not 'not real'.

As we are talking about quantum entanglement, I mean wavefunction and a particle state in quantum mechanics.

Same as above. You did not say above, how he described quantum entanglement. No, we cannot observe state of wavefunction, nor state of particles. They are not observable.

There is only a handful of kingdoms. It is not statistically significant to test this hypothesis.

How did he describe quantum entanglement?

But I argue that because of the mode of their sexual reproduction, populations of terrestrial animals are significantly more isolated from each other than plants or marine animals. Terrestrial male and female usually have to physically be in the same place at the same time in order to reproduce. It isn't generally so for plants or marine animals. This restriction for reproduction of terrestrial animals significantly limits gene exchange between populations. Separated populations evolve independently and become different species after a while.

Has somebody figured out quantum entanglement back then?