Shadow

This is all my point of view, and is not supported by any scientific evidence that I know of. Also, I didn't read through the entire thread, so if I'm repeating what someone else has already said, I apologize. I think it's really a question of how many things it can do, not how fast. Yes, a computer is fast, but it is extremely limited. You have to have a special type of computer for every single task. The computer we all have at home can certainly solve any equation much faster than the human brain, but I would like to see how that same computer would tackle mowing the lawn. I think, the human brain isn't as fast as computers because it has to do an incredible amount of things at the same time. IMO, if you somehow made the human brain to concentrate completely on one single problem, eg. solving an equation, it would do that task much faster than a computer. But again, this is just me thinking aloud. Cheers, Gabe

If this really works, it will be interesting. I think it will certainly open up new doors...for example, I won't be the least bit surprised when (not if) some people start researching what happens when you plug a person who is being...influenced...by a chemical into that game they're describing ) And virtual voodoo dolls will never be the same... Cheers, Gabe

That depends; do you have a midi/wav that contains a set of frequencies, and you just want to approximate them to notes? Or do you have a song you want to make sheet music for? Because I'm pretty sure the latter is impossible; the same note on a guitar, piano, and trumpet will be very different when looking at the frequencies; while the note is the same, the sound is completely different. The former should be possible, but I'm not aware of any software that does this, and if there is anything like that I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be for free. A third option arises if you actually know the frequencies in question. You can then just use a simple chart to convert them to notes. A Google search for "frequency of notes" turned up a bunch of them. Or, if you're fluent in a programming language, you can try and make your own piece of software, although I have no idea how hard that would be. Cheers, Gabe

*smile*

17/m/Czech Republic I'm starting to feel young again...

I think it's brilliant. It's witty, and as thedarkshade said, captures how science and relationships seldom work well together ) And while I think that nearly every character is the backbone of the show, I think I like Sheldon and Howard best. Cheers, Gabe

I know, I noticed, but had already passed the time limit for editing. I meant [math]Z^+_0[/math]. But thanks for the site ;-)

Hey all, as some may know, I've been attempting to learn calculus lately, and despite the fact I though I had already mastered the part of the tutorial I was reading, I did encounter a slight problem for which I cannot find a logical explanation. Let us have a [math]f(t)=2t + 1, t\in N[/math]. Its graph would then be a line going starting at [math]A=[0, 1][/math] and going through [math]B=[1, 3][/math]. If we subtract two from the output, we will get [math]f(t)-2=2t-1[/math]. The graph will be a line starting at [math]A=[0, -1][/math] and continue on through [math]B=[\frac{1}{2},0][/math]. In other words, the graph will be moved down by two. It's minus, so it's down. That makes sense. But if we subtract two from the input, we get [math]f(t-2)=2t-3[/math]. The graph will be a line starting at [math]A=[2, 1][/math] and continue on through [math]B=[3, 3][/math]. In other words, the graph will be moved to the right. It's minus, so logically it should be moved to the left. Why is this so? Cheers, Gabe

I see. Interesting, that would've never occurred to me. Thanks man ) Cheers, Gabe

I think I understand what your doing in each step, unfortunately the logic behind each step eludes me. If it's not too much trouble, could I ask you to rewrite what you posted symbolically in English?

While this has nothing to do with chemistry, I like this one. However, as the guy who made the video says and common sense dictates, I don't think it's all that safe to try, and I've heard from those who did try it that it makes the microwave useless. Can't confirm that last part though, since I have no intention of trying it myself ) Cheers, Gabe

That's a good idea. Although I think I'd go with the online method, since I find math much easier to understand in English as opposed to Czech (don't ask me why). Which gets pretty confusing sometimes, because I'm familiar with the basics in Czech (eg. what we learn in school) but the more advanced stuff I know in English (eg. what I learn from the internet). It's sometimes a pretty big challenge putting those two together. For example, until a topic a couple of days ago forced me to find out, I had no idea what sets were. Then, when I looked at the Czech translation, I found out that I had known all along, and everything fell into place. But thanks for the advice, I'll be sure to ask if I need anything ;-) Cheers, Gabe

I know it's about presentation, that's what I meant. And this guy gives LOTS of practice problems, which is also another excellent thing about this book. And I am doing all of the exercises, even though I already think I know it all. But I only finished the first chapter, which contained stuff I already knew, so I'm not surprised. I knew it wasn't going to be easy, but your post did help me appreciate what I was trying to achieve. And it didn't discourage me, quite the opposite. You see, the way I think of this is that the harder it is and the longer it will take, the prouder I will be of myself when I'm finished. And also the more useful it will be. It's the way I think of everything, at least math related. I wish I could extend this view to the real-world-plane... And it doesn't have to be done in weeks, I have all the time in the world. It's not an assignment, it's just something I do in my free time. And since it forces me to learn new things, I can't much complain about my hobby ) Cheers, Gabe

Actually, I was thinking of giving it as a Christmas present to my little brother, since I just can't think of a present for him...but I'll go through my receipts and see if I can find the place where I purchased it, something's telling me eBay....

Yeah, that was my train of though as well. Thanks! )

The Explorer flaw has always been there, it's just nobody knew about it )

Thanks for the tip DH. Thanks everyone, for that matter. Just a quick question, I'm attempting to learn calculus from here. Could someone have a quick look and tell me if it's any good? So far, I think it's excellent, if only because it assumes the reader knows practically nothing, but I'd still like the opinion of someone who already knows calculus. Cheers, Gabe

Actually, I think I have one in the backyard that came with a manual...)

I sure hope it's not...but I'm guessing you know that better than me.

Ah. Thanks for that. I still don't understand [math]\begin{array}{ccc} (0,1) & \to & \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N}) \\ 0.d_{1}d_{2}d_{3}\dots & \mapsto & \{ n : d_{n}=1 \} \end{array} [/math]

Thanks! I was going to try http://www.plunk.org/~trina/thesis/html/thesis_toc.html, but I can't seem to connect at the moment...I hope they haven't deleted it, since it looked like a pretty good site. EDIT: Here's Google's Cache EDIT2: Ah, and here is the site from The Wayback Machine. You just got to love that site.

Still got the originals you sent me way back then But thanks anyway. I've got the gravitational part worked out, as long as I'm using Newtonian Laws. What I want to do now is learn calculus properly, and then try to figure out SPH. Which will probably take quite some time, and it may just be too complicated for me. But that won't stop me from giving it a try

Frankly, I didn't even recognize that as functions. The only functions I know and recognize are in the form [math]f(x)[/math]. All that fancy arrow/punctuation/something-that-looks-like-a-series stuff means nothing to me

Hey Mike ) I didn't know you still visited SF, I was actually thinking of writing you now that I've started working on that program again (yep, still the same one). I've heard about SPH before, it may have even been you who mentioned it. Unfortunately, I couldn't recall what it was called, so thanks for that. I'll have a look at it Cheers, Gabe

Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure I could get away with that But I guess with respect to a, although I'm not completely sure; as I said, I'm as new to calculus as one can get, and I think I've already jumped a little too far for my level. And while I'm aware that tetration and exponentiation is different, you can do the same thing with multiplication; [math]\underbrace{a*a*a*a*a...a*a}_{b}[/math] can be represented as either [math]a^b[/math] or as [math]a*c[/math], where [math]c=\underbrace{a*a*a*a*a...a*a}_{b-1}[/math]. So why can't we treat tetration the same way? If we do [math]\underbrace{a^{a^{a^{.^{.^{.}}}}}}_{b}[/math], then it should be equal to both [math]a \uparrow \uparrow b[/math] and to [math]a^c[/math], where [math]c= \underbrace{a^{a^{a^{.^{.^{.}}}}}}_{b-1}[/math] Cheers, Gabe