# sciencenoob

Members

28

1. ## Find the value of x in this equation:

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. ## Find the value of x in this equation:

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. ## Find the value of x in this equation:

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. ## Find the value of x in this equation:

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. ## Find the value of x in this equation:

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. ## Infinite infinities

Technically infinity is not a number. Only zero is a number. Infinity is a mathematical abstractation
7. ## Find the value of x in this equation:

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. ## Is it Impossible?

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. ## Are biologists poorly trained?

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. ## More than 4 years at university as an undergraduate

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. ## More than 4 years at university as an undergraduate

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. ## More than 4 years at university as an undergraduate

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. ## More than 4 years at university as an undergraduate

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. ## More than 4 years at university as an undergraduate

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. ## More than 4 years at university as an undergraduate

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?
16. ## Socialeconomic status VS. Academic qualifications & intelligence - Blatent disparity?

Im afriad its not true that higher education means higher pay. Of course it does to a certain degree. I mean there is a threshold here. I am analyzing the set of data after say a minimum of a college/university degree. Of course if you are a highsdchool drop out the chances of you being middle class pay is close to nothin. Further from that then (the university degree minimum), education vs wealth has a inverse like relationship. This is especially true in the case of PhDs, as a lot of PhDs end up working in the academics and research, or are deemed overqualified for jobs, in general hence those types of jobs pay middle class pay.
17. ## Is Quantum Mechanics First Principles Enough?

I am not underappreciating any principle here nor am I questioning the validity of the energy conservation laws, so your rantings are pointless. I was pointing it out to make you aware that the conservation laws are themselves none other than a principle in itself, one that you may say can have mathematical and theoretical backup/establishments, but regardless, it is something that you would otherwise 'believe' is true in the universe, throughwhich scientists put fourth further theories and predictions based upon this principle. Likewise then, one should not exclude from the possible notion or principle, that particle dynamics and behavior at the microscopic (one would say 'quantum') level, can behaves in a deterministic and continuous manner. In fact it would be just as wrong and flawed and 'unscientific' to suggest otherwise, than to suggest that particles behave deterministically. But that is exactly why principles are quickly established in theories such that theories can be drawn, otherwise you wont have any basis to found your theory upon. Einstein's work on special and general relativity will be a waste of time, if infact the principle of relativity in itself was a flawed notion. But all of this discussion regarding scientific application of 'principles', is to carry you to the point that it is also a principle that particles may behave deterministically. If that were to be the case them, QM simply cannot be the most fundamental. But then you also dont understand, that current QM theories never have challenged or approached this principle because the current theories utilizes statistical means as a theoretical basis, but does not challenge the particle dynamics side. And since this is to be the case, then one cannot exclude the fact that there has to be a more fundamental theory, one in which can describe the particle dynamics, and one in which can also then further to it explain the findings that QM (statistics) show, experimentaly.Infact it will be bogus to suggest that QM is in itself proof that particles cannot behave deterministically and is 'random', because then it will fall into the relm of personal interpretation of QM theories, and not what the math itself is trying to explain, hence it is also unscientific (just philosophy) under your own descriptions.
18. ## Is Quantum Mechanics First Principles Enough?

Yet this proves you dont understand what I am saying or what is going on here. Do you not understand that the conservation of energy is a PRINCIPLE. We call it a law because it is so strongly substantiated in all forms of life that we can call it a law, but ultimately its a principle. Something that is the very basic foundation, perhaps abstractly controlled by natures wierd ways (which physics will never be able to __explain__ and shall never aim to anyways). But it is no doubt that if for example, conservation laws were not to be conserved then certain theories may certainly break down. I hope you do realize that Pauli looked at the problem of the missing energy, then he went on to apply a principle here to reinforce his postulate of what is the 'neutrino' now, that energy has to be conserved in life (this is a belief also!!! a good belief, yes but a belief! a principle!). Its like how the lorentz transformation is so wierd and abstract. How do you explain or understand it? Well you dont. Its a mathematical relationship, used and made and designed such that you will have the theoretical establishment of the principle of special relativity to ensure that the speed of light is (on the whole of course strictly speaking) the maximum.
19. ## Is Quantum Mechanics First Principles Enough?

Hold on a second, you are obviously the science bunch that read science textbooks, learn the modern interpretation of it (repeat: _intepretation_) without any real knowledge of the actual evolution of the theory, and perhaps the interpretation as seen through the eyes of the founders of such theory (even though they themselves may not be right, or have complete view of the theory's potential, etc). There is such thing as: 'principle', through which logical, scientific and mathematical relationships that is physics, can be successfully applied. Lets look at the numerous numerous examples. Einstein wanted to reinforce the principle of special/general relativity because he 'believed' it was true in life, that was the foundation of his theory on it. It agreed with experiments hence its now good. Wolfgang Pauli hypothesized the existance of the neutrino because of his 'belief' that the energy is surposed to be conserved. Energy conservation is a principle, a good willed belief. The neutrino was discovered later. ETC ETC So, it is no suprize that there are those in the scientific comunity (Einstein being one also!) that believes the world is deterministic and that particles infact do travel continuous, real paths. It is only because of QM's current inabilities, that such actual particle dynamics are not theorized. It doesnt make this 'belief' wrong. Maybe you just dont like the word belief and get all technical on me, and maybe i could have used a better term like the statement of a principle, etc - but like it or not ill stick to the word belief because ultimately that is what it is, it is when you can build a theory on this belief and that it agrees with experiments that it becomes science. Lets wake up a little.

21. ## Is Quantum Mechanics First Principles Enough?

To put it simply, I am a believer that the universe is deterministic. I believe that a particle has a trajectory path similar to the classical newtonian sort of way (i.e. it is continuous in spacetime). You may be able to describe things using statistics (what QM is doing) and it perhaps suffices for engineering applications, but it does not exclude from the real possibility that particles travel real deterministic paths, and hence if that were to be the case then QM simply cannot be fundamental enough. If it is true (but I dont see how one were to go about proving), the principle that particles travel discontinuously (i.e. it can exist in one point then all of a sudden decompose in spacetime and instantly spawn in another and different spacetime), then QM may then be argued to be as fundamental as it can get (perhaps, because then you may still be able to predict/document the dynamics of its movements). I dont care for the uncertainty principle that underlies QM, because that principle is simply a construct developed for the need to explain what is observed experimentally and at a theoretical level. However the uncertainly principle relates strictly applicable to QM only, the mechanism of which is perhaps explainable with more fundamental understanding.

23. ## Is Quantum Mechanics First Principles Enough?

Well I have always known that einstein was famous in his attemps to discredit QM because he feels that its not deterministic enough, but its not because of einstein why people should also believe that science can be more fundamental than QM. It really should be quite obvious for people to simply accept the fact that a certain theory, whether or not they have huge invested interests in it or not (such as careers, self study dedication, etc) to understand that QM simply isn't complete in the philosophical sense. That is, statisitcs really isnt fundamental (or first principles) enough, because it fails to describe the actual manifestation and dynamics and interactions of the system itself. Of course that is not to say QM is useless because I am a strong supporter of QM for its actual usefulness and for what we can do, but at the same time I understand the limitations of QM as a fundamental theory and its incompleteness that a lot of people simply will not accept. For example, we can very well make a probability density function of a relatively hard standardized test (e.g. public exams, iq tests etc) and then be able to achieve somewhat of a normal distribution. We can then infer from this information the average test score of the population which we can then go on to say that the population is on average '____ this' smart, etc (within limitations); this works similarly to the concepts of QM. But thats not good enough in the philosophical sense of being a fundmanetal first principles description. What we will really need, is to explain perhaps the experiences of every individual taking the test, their brain network structure, how they think, etc etc, and put this in some sort of complicated matrix solution or simulation, to then obtain from this, the final observation we get from the statistics, and to even go as far as to predict what certain indibviduals in the population is capable of achieving, from the modelling alone. That will be the approach from first principles. Hence like einstein I believe in the deterministic nature of theories to be more fundamental, but unlike einstein I respect QM for its usefullness.
24. ## Understanding the Wave Equation

I can understand and have looked past the fact that QM is just abstract so we need to drop our intuitions when using QM. But I still want to try to understand the signifiance of the wave function. For example, plank has been obsessed with the signifiance of the planks constant, as have mathematicians with pi, etc. Perhaps that is naive and but though naive I think this quest is still important towards developing better intuitions about the very abstract world we live in. Nobody has explained what the wave functon is by definition though and why its use for QM works the way it does
25. ## Is Quantum Mechanics First Principles Enough?

I am not saying what I believe is significant. What I am saying is that QM is insufficient to describe the actual dynamics of the small particles, etc. The idea of first principles should be, the idea of the most fundamental description of nature, yes no matter how abstract. But using probability to describe the system isnt good enough, hence not 'first principles enouigh' because it fails to describe or explain the manifestation and phenomenas we observe, that is to explain the probability density observed as explained by QM. So future theories can certainly go further and more fundamental than what QM is currently capable of accomplishing, hence QM cant be the most fundamental description of nature.
×