Jump to content

ydoaPs

Moderators
  • Content Count

    10556
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ydoaPs last won the day on September 9

ydoaPs had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1600 Glorious Leader

1 Follower

About ydoaPs

  • Rank
    The Oncoming Storm
  • Birthday 04/21/1988

Profile Information

  • Location
    Local Group
  • College Major/Degree
    BA in Philosophy, pursuing MA in History and Philosophy of Physics
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  • Biography
    ...
  • Occupation
    Former Nuclear Mechanic; Current Philosopher

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    ydoaPs

Recent Profile Visitors

82943 profile views
  1. You'll need to define a function; do you know how? You'll need to take an input from the user; Do you know how? You'll need to make sure the data type of the input is a certain type; do you know what type that is and how to check that the input is that type? Then you'll need to perform the calculation and print the result; Do you know how? Give it a shot, and if you can't figure out how to do any of the above steps, let us know. We won't do your homework for you, but we'll help you figure it out.
  2. That's kind of the definition of UFO.
  3. You could map the wavelengths of visible light to [0,1], map [0,1] to some continuous subset of your time variable, then do a graph for different colors (points in time) for any "granularity" of colors (moments) that you'd like.
  4. Throwing a ball up has it start with a velocity v coming out of your hand. There is no force causing it to accelerate upward, but there is a force causing it to accelerate downward: gravity. So, from v, the velocity slows with the acceleration due to gravity until it stops. But, then, it starts going down, still accelerating due to gravity. This trajectory is symmetric about the point at the top where the velocity is zero. So, for any other point, there is a partner where the ball has the same speed. But for each speed, the ball has that velocity for 0 seconds. There must be a time or two that the ball is at each speed, but it is at each speed for no time at all. Indeed, speed, not velocity. You've earned yet another cookie for catching my mistakes.
  5. For any velocity the ball has along its trajectory, it has it for precisely 0 seconds, and for all but v_y = 0, it has said velocity twice for 0 seconds.
  6. Precisely 0. There must be a time where v_y=0, but the amount of time v_y=0 is precisely 0. This is honestly very unintuitive for a lot of people (Iirc, this might explicitly be a motivating example in the intro to Frames and Locales). Tbh, this is a big part of why I'm not a fan of pointy space. Localic space ftw.
  7. ! Moderator Note Topic moved to General Philosophy
  8. ! Moderator Note Topic moved to General Philosophy
  9. Then I'm inclined to think it's just a coincidence.
  10. IIRC, the HUP is just a consequence of position and momentum being related via fourier transform. So, global gauge invariance of the EM field gives us conservation of charge via Noether; is there a corresponding uncertainty pairing?
  11. That's a good point. This is an important distinction and one that technically makes the proof incorrect. A is an element of P(Z), not a subset. A is a subset of Z. The elements of P(Z) are the subsets of Z.
  12. ! Moderator Note Question is also found in the thread Reflexivity, so I am closing this thread.
  13. Reflexivity and transitivity look good, but "obviously" won't cut it for symmetry. You should cite that set intersection is commutative for (b).
  14. This argument came up again recently, and I realized that appealing to proper classes or conglomerates won't actually help. See, the argument itself is a proof of negation, so it works in any nondegenerate topos. And it came to my attention that Cantor's Theorem generalizes from Set to an arbitrary topos. For any object Y in an arbitrary nondegenerate topos, there is no surjection f: Y -> 2Y. So you can run the exact same argument swapping out talk of sets with talk of objects and talk of subsets and members with talk of subobjects. So, the argument can be formulated for an arbitrary topos.
×
×
  • 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.