rktpro

They have a name for God. The name is Kristo. Does it ring a bell?

 

 

 

You haven't still made us to know where the bell is?

I`m a visionary. I saw this in a dream. I know you will laugh at me if I told you this story. I know you wont believe this tale but I had to let it out so others will know ( incognito visionaries) what the future will be & what will happen to planet earth once the sun finally dies.

 

 

 

At some other place you mention of Hindu Scriptures. What evidence would you provide from them in support of you vision?

Do you know besides these Greek letters we could use replacing, " alpha, omega, theta and beta and all" so it wont look serious?

Science has seen its uprising from ancient Greeks. Though it might be debatable about whether Asian scientist and mathematics were the initiators of the great journey of knowledge yet we all agree that ancient Greek had a lot of reasonable contribution in the mainstream science and mathematics of today.

Look at the case of the Newtonian era. They wrote in Latin just to make it look serious.

It is a simply homage to the Greek.

When Jesus said he is the alpha ( 1st ) & omega ( last ), he was actually referring himself to a radioactive atom (spirit-soul) whose nuclei has spontaneously disintegrated & emitted alpha particles or electromagnetic rays during the process ( alpha decay )& Resurrection as an Omega ( baryon )-a subatomic hadron particle which have the symbols Ω

These Greek letters are used by scientist as a convention or to make it look serious. How Jesus knew that later, thousands of years from then, people would use alpha and omega and theta and beta and all?

hey guys,

 

The table below shows the distribution of marks obtained by a group of students in a Physics test.

 

 

Construct a cumulative frequency table and draw its ogive, Using the ogive, estimate

(a) the median mark,

(b) the upper quartile mark,

© the percentage of students who obtained more than 60 marks

 

I do calculation rather than construct the cumulative frequency table and draw the ogive, but the answer I got is 49.875, the answer given is (51)

same happen for (b) question, I got 70 instead of 65.5("real" answer)

 

does calculation missed that much from the ogive itself?

It wouldn't take enough time if you draw the ogive too. You will yourself understand your question.

Sorry if this sort of naive stuff annoys the mathematicians. It intrigues me look for the simple underlying relationships that you guys forgot at primary school.

I doubt that. A true mathematician is ready to help and take all crap.

I discovered a Law for Prime Numbers.

 

I have for the couple of years searched ways of finding a law which will determine the prime numbers. As we all know, the law which will allow us to predict prime numbers are unknown. Unfortunately, today, I cannot still offer any remarkable law which will determine prime numbers, but I did find another law for prime numbers along the way.

 

The Law States: The sum of all numbers which make up a prime will give you a number which will never be allowed to be a multiple of 3, nor do any digits ever make the sum of 12 to allow 3 to be divided, with the only acception of the the second prime number that is 3. If after you have taken the sum of all your numbers and you end up with a two-digit number, you continue taking the sum of the value until you have only one number left.

 

I have taken this law up to the 2000th prime number, and by finding this I have never been so sure that there is in fact a hidden structure behind their appearances.

IMHO, why was there a need to take that to 2000th prime. If you found that right,you must have aimed to find the reason behind-which no doubt is all about divisibility by 3.

And a prime no. is just a no. which has 1 and itself as its factors. The fact is just that you have again defined what prime no. are. But if you added divisibilty test of 2 also, that would make it complete.

I would say in the usa that's not correct either. Both parties we have are basically a duopoly that lean center-right, and really do not represent where the people are. There are many different political mindsets in the US, and our government represents only a tiny fraction of them... A small sliver on the spectrum. Perhaps things in India are better.

I read that in your nation parties along with the agreement of people, put their candidates for elections. In larger democracies like India, it is the top party leader who decides the contesting candidates.

It seems that your nation is better in that aspect.

I think you are mistaken. It is controlled by the very few and the very powerful. We are not governed by consensus. The parties no longer represent the people.

That is what I intend to say. Parties, in the name of democracy, still contest elections with manifesto and organise rallies but just to influence the opinion of people. They occupy legislative body, they have pressure groups as their extensions and personal opinion of many members doesn't count and a party runs by the opinion of party leader.

Yes, I agree with you that the big-shots decide most of the policies/programs but I didn't put that point because I only understand the democratic politics of India. I thought it might be different in other countries.

And that parties are no longer representative of people can be wrong in many nations. Parties are growing and identified with social and political division, I repeat. They represent people in form of representative government in large democracies. Parties have their 'vote banks' in the form of partisans. And if we think in detail, power sharing/ 3 tier system has enabled local people to have power. If, a political party doesn't pay heed to people, it is likely to get changed. That's why when there are more than 2 parties-we call it democracy-a fair choice for people.

@tomgwyther,

Political parties which contest elections are now identical to social and political decisions. They sometimes put forward the opinions of people and sometimes they influence their decision-changing it the way they want. They mobilise people for a cause. True that people make law for themselves and parties execute that. But parties can and in many cases are just run on their own choice-which has been converted into wide opinion.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think democracy is becoming increasingly problematic..........not that there is a better governmental system on the horizon.

If you could combine democracy with a stable and low population then I believe that we would be as close to govermental perfection as we are likely to get.

What problems you feel would be there in a democracy due to large population?

There are living creatures that undergo mitosis and cytokinesis to reproduce. Creatures mate because mating allows more variance in individuals, which is more evolutionary successful than making a mere copy of your own chronosomes.

It should have been that species are able to reproduce. Yes, using the term 'mate' confines 'species' to only sexually reproducing.

so, (3+7) / 2 = 5

 

does that all needed to find every first / third quartile in un-group data?

Data must be in ascending order.

hey guys,

 

the question says...

 

A set of numbers x, 7, 11, 5x has a mean of 9. Find the values of x and the first quartile.

 

firstly, I got x = 3, which is right. but I got problems with finding the first quartile. btw, the answer is 5.

 

so, what does need to be done to find the first quartile in an ungroup data, or does the answer given is wrong??? find quartile in group data seems to be easier... ;O

Hint:Sometimes a quartile is the average of two numbers which are in the quartile.

In my opinion there is an optimal population size where democracy works well and is or can be highly responsive to problems.

 

However I believe that most or all countries have exceeded this optimal population size and now democracy is a hinderance to what clearly needs to be done.

 

There is no room for governments to 'breath'.

 

No matter what they do it upsets some segment of the population and hence governments tend to do little or nothing in response.

No doubt that democracy in not perfect, but it is ideal. And in every case, irrespective of population.

I recall it was root 2 which was first proved irrational and the uniqueness of root 2 was also proved.

Did I say that existence was proved in class 10?

Further, debating weather I was taught that is not the main topic here. All schools in different countries have different schooling and syllabus.

In my opinion large population size plays a role in governmental dysfunction.

 

With anything activity in life, the more people there are the harder it is to come to any decision in a reasonable time and the more likely those decisions will not be optimal for the particular scenario.

 

Governments are become more interested in appeasing the widely disparate and fickle masses than they are with taking the best decision.

Not in a democracy and representative government along with coalition.

A robot could be categorised as specie only when it is able to mate and reproduce.

well, how about this, this new government that i am talking about consist of the board, which might be a couple of people that are extremely smart and make all the decisions, but they do not come up with the solutions themselves they have to be assisted by another part of the government, which consist of experts for all kinds of subjects, and this experts are actually the ones that come up with the solutions for the problems.

Still, who will decide that who will be in that board?

Aliens love circles. From the day they were told that crop circles were a prank by humans, they felt devastated. Now they have other shapes of UFO too.

Feynman Lectures on Physics is a must read before you die.

The Government of any given country is there to establish law, but lets face it, a lot of the people in the government are not very bright, so if we were to replace the government by a board of scientists that decided laws in a totally un-bias way, do you think that that would be better and improve our quality of life?

Unbiased things exist only in Probability and other assumed events like an unbiased coin.

What you are proposing would never ever be democracy unless you make all people agree to your proposal, remove current political parties if the law in your country doesn't allow a change in main ideology.

Oops, I assume, even if you get scientist on work, they will have to work what the people demand. You can't change their demands.

And, it is not always quality/degree required in political life. Maybe your unbiased scientist might not connect to people. They might, though being unbiased, not able to see the regional demands.

Further, let us say we apply your system. Now, how many parties would be there. More than 2 parties will make it a democracy. Let us suppose we have 5 parties. Since all members are unbiased, they all will have same manifesto and same ideology. They wouldn't compete for healthy politics.

In politics, if you have more than one major party, it is clear indication that the other parrty has made certain people unhappy.

I know it is, but this is the correct kind of response from someone who aspires to follow the scientific method. You showed me a flaw in my logic and I corrected accordingly and immediately...no ego to support here. I've no wish to argue for the indefensible unless I'm playing Devil's Advocate which I'm not here.

 

 

My initial position required a metaphysical explanation to support it ie a 'soul', that you rightly imo, pointed to which is counter to current biological ideas on what Life is. I support the idea that Life is an emergent property of a complex set(s) of molecules, so, what I said before was incongruous with conventional scientific ideas on this subject.

Okay. Now let us see it another way.

Assume you have a black box/green box as proposed by OP fitted into a human. Now what it will store? Memories/experiences. It is not living, we all know. The box doesn't have life. It is biologically nothing but a just matter with no molecular/biological metabolism going on. Now we fit it into another human, say I fit that in you. Now, you already have a sense of life and you feel yourself. If you eat, you feel you have eaten. Even if the memories are transferred, deleting your all existing memories, it will not delete the part which makes you feel that whatever work is being done is done by you. Even in those who don't remember anything and have a complete memory wash still feel that what is being done is done by them.

Hence, transferring memories in such a way would not mean that the person who has died will live again. What will live are his memories.

How's that for a 180 degree turn.

Not fair.

On reflection, I think you are right as far as what I said before and I therefore retract it forthwith. On the basis that we do not possess a soul and that we are actually the sum total of our memories embedded in our brains, I would have to conclude that we would be transferred if those memories were transferred in their entirety.

The sense of being 'you' and existing wouldn't be transferred to the new brain...it would just be a copy of you with it's own sense of self and existence. The potential to carry on your work in the way the original you did it still remains though. Does that make sense?

How would you define that you were wrong earlier?

Photosynthesis really creates electrical energy but of extremely low quantity. It's in the process of electron-transfer. I guess what you are saying as a suitable apparatus is quite far from realization that it's only you who have thought of using plat as an electricity source but who know. Maybe in two or three scores, you'll be able to make that suitable apparatus. Nevertheless, your idea is good. Thumbs up. Only few can think the way you thought. I admit, even I can't.

Can you elaborate that?