Neurocomp2003

you couldn't tell...cuz of the leap year and crap.

oh my badd...see i'm good with all the math stuff when its time to interpret the stuff...i'm like gah! thats why i like my astrophysics text, carroll and ostlie it makes things alot easier to understand. Thanks for clarifying my mistake.

do they teach mph in american universities?? I think it has something to do with light not having mass, therefore it is not affected by mediums. Its still fishy to me even after taking QM,Rel, Astrophys

i doubt an rectangular dice would even roll. What about a spherical dice? never see any of those

yeah i agree, it depends on their education...but in the past men...because of course on all the chauvanistic ideals of rthe past.

would you really call that a science though? its like training for martial arts and the army...language and everything else that is behavioural...which i guess you could call science. Which simply implies that anything that can be learned is a science. and reallly with AOL and Pepsi, i would really like to punch out their advertisers, those commericials are really annoying.

social activities = lab work??? are you sure thats the social activity your parents want??? not like social/science clubs or sports clubs? but like skye said try universities.....if your willing to volunteer and learn, then someone may accept you...and may even pay you if they really like the work you do.

it could be technically called "mathematical neuroscience" but in my opinion it is a subfield of it. Basically it studies/models the behaviour of neurons, and biological neural networks at the firing pattern/conductance/current level for computational modelling. You get a bunch of PDEs and ODEs and its comes down to studying dynamical systems with application in NNs. It ignores ion concentration, channel flow etc and some other stuff that comes with studying the brain that you could model, which is more biophysics related.

redshifts and blueshifts are opposites. But we use the term redshift for simplicity

nice, Maybe plans to inhabit mars will be pushed forward then but i don't think they should go probe the water...what happens if the probe short circuits? Or maybe they'll sned it with bubble wrap

i am a big fan comp/math blended fields chaos theory/perturbation/dynamic systems, whatever you want to call it, as well as fractals and number theory/crypt. I am currently teaching my self number thoeyr in crypt and spiking neurons.

1-with our current theories we proved/assumed that we cannot travel at the speed of light...but to our knowledge our theories are correct. 2-in my opinion time is not a physical dimension it is a mathematical concept to describe the interaction of matter. That is time is really a simple way of foreseeing how a systems will develop. BUt it has nothing to do with the system. Its sort of like statistics, a tool not reality. 3-Cellular automatons are time-irreversible unlless you can save the whole n^D system, which is computationall expensive. Time-irreversible meaning that given a state of the system, you are unable to trace back to a state before this state(post if you want further explanation of this). Therefore if you were to really time travel, you would either 1) have to save the system at time = t which is impossible because you would be saving our known universe and whatever is out there. 2) you would have to retrace every step of every particle in the known universe back to whatever timeline you wnat to go to. and that is computationally infeasible both computer and quantum because you would not know where that particle was at that time. Thus in my opinion multiverses are more plausible than timetravel. Just for the logical fact that...how would you know if you traveled back intime or to another universe.

if you have ever had doubts that a simple thing such as 'goo' can turn into 'life'. Try programming Fractals Graphics or Cellular automata. They show that simple things can produce phenomenal complex systems. Not only that, some CAs even show sustained form. That is structure that has taken shape(solids) and has and can be translated through space but not really through space but by the rules that govern the CA. IF a solid can be formed in a CA with simple rules and if you have seen it been done in a simulation, it should not be hard to believe that something as complex as life could result from such a simple thing as 'goo'. Life first must take a structural or solid form before it begins to move and then it just does what it does. To put it in another perspective a simple CA has 2 states 8 rules in nxn space THere for you have 2^nxn situations with 8 rules aplied to each grid cell, do the math. our universe has how many rules and how many states.??unkown but mostlikely more than 8...you cna do the math

artificial intelligence: speech synthesis, vision, pattern rec., spatial navigation

flaccid is the opposite of turgid isn't it? plasmolysis ....passing of water or absorbing i think.

your way is not correct becuase your forces are not aligned you can do this with Energy equations however but not forces becasue forces are vectors and rely on alignment ok your gonna be setting up a "FORCE" Diagram or whatever it is called the mass/gravity FOrce points down, F_g the normal Force perpendicular to motion (perd. to incline) F_n the friction Force parallel to incline going up. F_f and if there was an initial force/acc/velo. F_i set your diagrm up with these for diagrams and use your knowledge of trigonometry(cos/sin) to align these force you'll end up with 2 equations. THe best alignment is to align with respect to X,Y axis but you can also align with incline/normal axis if you choose

BSc in Neural Computation /m in Physics

Does anyone know where i can find anything about the FCPs especially the quantity of each 4 in an atom or gravitational system. Also does anyone know of any large scale experiments to detect lots of them

we look for water/oxygen lifeforms because life as we know it(especially higher cognitive lifeforms) exist based on these 2 things. Thus astrobiologists assume this is the best way to start

I left out cosmology because i didn't know where to put it and i don't think it fits into my hierarchy but let me explaind the hierarchy you can observe reactions in chemistry but to get an absolute concrete foundation you would need to look at physics to get a concrete view of molecular chemistry a larger and more advance chemistry you need a stern foundations in chemistry. and so on. I mean you can study each field in its own right. but to provide a more concrete view you must look at the areas that it borders on hence the interdisciplinary fields of biochem, biophys, mathphys, mathbio, mathchem etc. mathpsych,biopsych,chempsych. and so i put ecology after psychology and society because to me psychology is the study of an individual not necessarily a higher cognitive individual but one that behaves in some sort of manner, the science of society is the study of a group of individuals and then ecology is the study of a group of groups interacting with there environment. SO perhaps there should be a second branch from bio->environmental->geo->eco (i minored in astrophysics) as for cosmology clearly it is the study of the large...but it is almost based on masses primitive/simple fast reactions Clearly it doesn't really rely on ecology. OR perhaps in does when you view astrochem and planetary science. BUt hey maybe someday there would be a field of simulation trying to see how cosmology and societies on different planets relate, but we are still a long way away from that

its actually both, how hard you try and how clever you are the clever you are the less you have to try the less clever you are the more you have to try. There is a third one though...how you act under pressure. which i believe is the main one. IF you buckle under pressure doesn't matter how clever or how ahrd you study. Either way the GREs are usually easy if you have good time management especially the subject test. They are based on 2nd and 3rd yr knowledge. The english is the hard part for me and i've taken a look at alot of the diverse questions in cs/phys/math/psych/chem... take a look at teh percentage of each specific field on the test...and focus mainly on those ones mainly organic and inorganic i think for chem. BUt you''ll also have rare questions like quantum and maybe nano. These may fool you but if you have good foundations in the others you should still score a respectable grade. Just be familiar with the guessing strategy of eliminating three then guess the last to cuz when it comes down to time this will make you or break you. BUt again look at the percentage breakdown and if you hav ea strong foundation of the more % ones then focus on the rareties

3 things you must note 1) pure vs applied math 2) topic/field of math 3) extense of your knowledge in that field. IF your looking for the beauty of math and cs i sugeest Gary Flake's the "computational beauty of nature" and excellent friendly book about how math and computers applies to nature. Discuses, NNs, GAs, CAs, Chaos, complexity, fractals, computatbility, with excellent simulations But when it comes down to it a textbook is the only way to go to understand theory/equations and to provide examples if your looking for more discriptive stuff perhaps pick up a physics book,

Neural nets are quite easy to make....but it depends on three things 1)the extense of your knowledge in mathematics 2)the size of the neural network you want 3)your willingness to sit there and play with constant parameters as you and NN's differ frmo CAs in that NN's deal with real or boolean values CAS discrete values and boolean nets deal with {-1,0,1} NN's use more statistical equations while booleans don't necessarily and CAs are just NN's learn to change by equations while CAs just change(transition table). ANNs can be software only... that is they are algorithms but there are research groups taht are trying to make ANNs hardware... actually a group in colorado i believe has acheived a silicon based , but also you get quantum NNs, molecular NNs and of course the cell on chip idea. But alot of this are still in preliminaries.. as per language MATLAB is the best simulator interms of people without coding experience where as once you learn matlab and have been able to programme some large nets you'd want to move to C++ for performance reasons anyways if your trying to get studnets to volunteer it is best to post your research idea at a school like CMU, as a undergrad/grad thesis project. Either way CMU is the best school to look at because they have the majority of top notch NN researchers there. THough every school has at least on eor two good ones...my old school had SUe Becker. who worked under G.Hinton

its a hierarchy physics-> chemistry->molecular chemistry->cellular biology ->animal/plant biology->psychology->society->ecology ->intelligence physics studies at very very small scales chemistry studies at small scales in the past both grew into their own but to make concrete theories first you need physics to explain models of chemistry but you also need observations from chemistry to explore new found things in chemistry

the centrifuge isn't really 2D. I'd have to draw it out for you.