Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Quark

sciencenoob's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. stop attempting to be a know it all. all youre saying re so general and trying to make out as some sort of pro you are talking as if you could easily have solved the original X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X=2 problem prior to knowing. If one coud not mathematically solve it without the use of trial and error, and that the proof they gave is not a general one, then this means this problem here is simply a case specific solution sa ive said, the 'a' can only be between ~0.37-2.7 to work and it doesnt converge anymore to the answer a i also saw this post from the riddles forum, so its a pretty cruddy riddle, its like me telling you that A * 0 = 0 where A is any number then if i told you 0/0=? Guess what is A yea its kinda like that
  2. nah, not good enough.. the proof works in the range of ~ 0.37 to 2.7 only hardly a proof of concept.. its a case specific proof does 10^2*10^2=10^4=10^(2+2)=10^(2*2) just becasue it works? no
  3. sorry but thats just weak. I cant accept that. If it doesnt work, it doesnt work. Theres nothing 'case specific' about this. If what he did was correct then it should be correct for all cases. Obviously it wasnt so his method was definately wrong. again i proposed its probably cause it was the magic number to. simple example what is x^2*x^2, is the answer x^2+2 = x^4 or x^2*2 = x^4 theres only 1 right way to do it. its x^2+2
  4. Which shows that the so called proof proposed by the OP is wrong, yet people have agreed on it. That proof only worked because it was the magic number '2'. and we know many cases where coincidental relationships and operators can be obtained that is mathematically incorrect, when dealing with the simple number 2. so his proof was not proof but merely something that seemed to be working out in his favor
  5. bump.. look at my solution suggesting a problem in the original 'answer', that it only applies simply due to the magic of the number 2 in this situation instead of being a real answer.
  6. Technically infinity is not a number. Only zero is a number. Infinity is a mathematical abstractation
  7. Interesting riddle, but unfortunately I think this proof has fallacies, simply because you happen to work with the magic number '2' that it seems to work, and hence a more generalized solution following the same processes as you undertook will not yield the same conclusion. For example: let (X)^X^X^X^X^X^X^X... = A ----- (1) if (X)^(X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X...) = A Therefore using Eq(1) (X)^(Eq(1))=A Then (X)^A=A Therefore X=A^(1/A) <= is your generalized form But If you tried this with say A=4, then the iteration breaks down, where Eq(1) does not make sense in that if A=4 then X=4^0.25, then Eq(1), A=/=X^X^X^X^X^X^X... Infact, if A=4, then you will get X^X^X... = 4, given that X=4^0.25 when you have only powered it 4 additonal times, and that any more powers on top of that will start going above 4. i.e.: given your solution that X=A^(1/A), and that A=4 Then: X=4^(1/4)=4^0.25 Then X^X^X^X^X^X^X... = 4 is true only when: (4^0.25)^(4^0.25)^(4^0.25)^(4^0.25)^(4^0.25)=4 <= EXACTLY such that: (4^0.25)^(4^0.25)^(4^0.25)^(4^0.25)^(4^0.25)^(4^0.25)=7.1 Hence I think theres something wrong with this 'proof' and that it seems to work only because its a 2? Please correct me if im wrong
  8. Of course you can & cant. In physics you can do a calculation and find out that there exists a loss of energy following a decay process and may that signifying the existance of a then unknown neutrino particle. Thats nothing you knew before, yet one had to be familar to the conservation of energy principle and the ideas surrounding quantum mechanics and 'particles'. So then it may be no because everything you know is linked in different complicated ways. And if you were to be able to find something you cannot have known then you simply could not have computed it because your language skills lies in to the picture. Really then it depends on your interpretation of what is meant by no prior link to your experience or knowledge, in which case really your question is simply a misnomer? Its unanswerable.
  9. The problem with using a lot of mathmatical models in biology or bio-related subjects is because you start losing the objectivity of the subject. Im not saying the current curriculum and practice of biology is perfect but I think it is doing alright as it is. A lot of times, mathematical models becomes too abstract that you simply lose track of the physical interpretation of it, which is of most important when dealing with biology/medical related subjects. People will also get side tracked into trying to understand and figuring out the equations in the model more so than the actual fundamental response. Also, mathematical models will easily disencourage people away from the course simply due to its mathematical nature in which some do not like. Lets take for example the mathematical model of a pair potential, that is the lennard jones potential. Theres two ways to remember the effect of a pair potential or a bond between 2 molecules if you will. You can choose to remember that as you push 2 atoms closer the force needed gets harder, siminlar to when you try to pull it away from each other, but it is easier to pull it away until eventually you can pull the atoms apart for good. The other is to use a lennard jone's equation which has very abstract terms that people simply try to understand from a physcal interpretation, which is simply a waste of time. Its like trying to understand quantum mechanics from a physical interpreation stantpoint. So really, biology is much more effective just remembering the rules of the game, than simply remembering mathamtical models. Also even if fundamental mathamtical models were developable for biology, they are themselves not fundamental anyways. There really is no point into doing this unless you can concretely have a very good theory which will ultimately be very limited, because a lot of biological responses and topics relating to it, can either be described by existing biochemistry rules and laws, or if some magical relationship you are tyring to describe were developed, they were really the phenomenon arising from more complexed multilevel, nonlinear interactions in which case your model itself will be very limited in its applicability.
  10. Obviously its his fault he failed his courses and has to do 6. Me by saying 'its not his choice' is referred to the other person who makes an example of how someone can choose at their own will to spread out the course requirements over a longer than normal timespan. In that case it will be their choice. But here, its not his choice because he does try to do all he can do but he cant and is thus FORCED to do 6 years. And no, it is not 'pretty common' to do engineering degrees in 5 years becomes the VAST majority of all students in any engineering program in north america will finish their degree in 4 because thats what you are surposed to do, and we are of course talking about the average to top notch bunch obviously = the bunch that will go on to get good engineering jobs without much trouble. Well the guy isnt stupid. He doesnt do shit. He locks himself in his room all day playing computer games and he sleeps at 6am and wakeups at 5, etc. He skips all his classes except labs and hands in the odd homework and studies right before the final for 24 hours straight and walks into the exam not having slept, that kind of deal. So he is not at all stupid, just incredibly incredibly lazy and a waste of his own life. But thats not the point. Employers dont know and dont care to know that! His record shows he is incompetant whether he is nor not. Ad even if employers do know, his level of laziness and bummness is NOT a good trait! The ultimate question of discussion here is how good are his chances of landing a job though? I dont know, I can imagine engineering firms being pretty tough.
  11. you _are kidding right? Most honours bachelor degrees are 4 years. That course load is not insane, even for engineering degrees. I mean we are only taking about 5-6 courses per term versus someone doing an arts degree will have 3-4. Its not really that insane. In my point of view it is the arts students that are having an extremely relaxed time versus the very normal work load for engineering students because once you are working, we are talking 9 work hours everyday straight up for the entire week, at the minimum excluding travelling etc. And who is this 'they' anyways. But that is besides the point right. Fine, if you want to take your time and spread things out its ok, you can do it in 5 years or more as long as you arent failing courses and having a bad record. The guy i am talking about fails courses which forces him to do 6. Its not his choice.
  12. You can't really apply for internships and expect to have a full time job of it when you dont even have your engineering degree yet. Also without an engineering degree from a known or respectable university you cant become a legal engineer professional (licensed) which means its useless. How engineering or other degrees normally work is, there are prerequisites that you must pass before you can do higher level courses. He just fails a few prerequisites every year that pulls him down a level until he is finally in his 6th year now. If he passes everything he will get his degree. Thats not the point though, he spent TWO MORE years than anybody else. On top of that his academic record is extremely scarred with really bad grades and a lot of failures in courses with extremely low grades (0GPA or 20%). I am not saying his age is a factor, but only the fact that he spent 2 more unneccesary years than what people normally spend, so this means he is wasting his time. It doesnt matter if you are 35 starting engineering degree as long as you can finish it in the normal time then you will look ok. He spent 6 years which kind of shows to employers he is incompetant
  13. You mean apply for internship? but you cant be an engineer if you dont have an enegineering degree. if you dont goto uni its probably worse than his situation with a degree and have shit grades, at least he has the degree He is like 26 so he is basically 3 years older than anybody in his class
  14. But who will employ him into an engineering company though? Seriously he has like a really bad record. He is extremely lazy and has really poor communication skills, like when he does presenations he chokes up pretty bad and it becomes extremely awkward because he starts getting nervous and shaking and everything, ive seen it a few times. The thing is, competant or not, it is SIX YEARS of a 4 year degree. Recruiters are known to be harsh when it comes to selection. He cant even make an interview with those grades, how can he even land the job? I dont know I feel sorry for him.
  15. I know this guy who is currently in his 6th year at university as an undergraduate doing his bachelors in engineering. His program is surposed to be 4 years long. He has extremely low grades, with an extremely low borderline fail (literally) GPA (GPA = 2.0 or 50+%), and his academic record is also full of failed courses with courses in the 0 GPA range (20+%), with additonally certain failed courses almost every year. I have a hard time imaging him being able to find a job because most employers look at transcripts when you go straight out of university, especially so for technical engineering jobs. It is also quite impossible to talk yourself out of the fact that you are quite incompetant. Also his record will be a complete turnoff and there is no way any recruiter will even consider him on first glance. I mean i dont think he will be unemployed per se, because he can obviously get lower middle class jobs like working in a shop, restraunt, mcds, janitor,etc but other than that I dont see how he can land even a middle class to decent job. The other wierd thing is most of the people in his normal year are either done with a masters by the time he is done if he can graduate this year, or have 2 years work experience. What are you take on this?
  • 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.