fuhrerkeebs
Senior Members
Posts
323 
Joined

Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by fuhrerkeebs

Cannabis and onset of schizophrenia
fuhrerkeebs replied to aj47's topic in Anatomy, Physiology and Neuroscience
Tycho's right. There is no link between marijuana use and onset of schizophrenia in individuals who aren't predisposed to it, but if you have a family history most psychoactive drugs can bring the schizophrenia out of you. 
As long as he's not worried about prison, that'd be a fine suggestion. Coca leaves (yes, the leaves) are Schedule II over here in the U.S...

Why don't you make use of the fact that humans breathe alot, and use a chest pad sort of thing to collect energy everytime we breathe?

Colleges or Universitys that go Twice as Fast.
fuhrerkeebs replied to Psion's topic in Science Education
Why don't you just teach yourself what you want and CLEP out of it? That's how I've gotten alot of my credits at the community college... 
It's not a problem of letting the kids decide what to believe, or anything of that sort. The problem is in the fact that ID is not science, and shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. I have no problem with the school systems teaching kids ID in nonscience classrooms, but not in a science class.

intelligent Design
fuhrerkeebs replied to darkkazier's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
What do atheism and agnosticism have to do with evolution? Yeah, and that whole generous and charitable Christian layperson thing doesn't go too well with the whole uber conservative Republican thing that Christians tend to be into. 
Was the first man a baby or an adult?
fuhrerkeebs replied to a topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
Is there really a first when it comes to gradual processes such as evolution? 
I'm assuming by Humanistic Evolutionary Science you mean naturalism? I don't see what humanism has to do with it though...

When you're talking about Schroedinger's equation, the wave function is the eigenfunction of the equation Hw=Ew, where w is the wave function, H is the hamiltonian, and E are the energy levels. H is the operator, the set of E's are the eigenvalues, and w is the eigenfunction. Nope, there are a bunch...Dirac's equation describes relativistic spin1/2 particles (such as electrons).

No one?

I copied all of my songs from my computer to my bro's computer over our network, and then loaded them all onto the new computer from there.

You could just memorize the roots of a bunch of prime numbers, and just factor the number, pull out all pairs of two and just multiply the roots of the remaining primes...or you could use taylor expansion.

I've been thinking about this for a while and I just wanted somebody to show me where my proof becomes faulty. This was my attempt to find an asymptotic formula for Mertens' function (the sum of the Mobius function). Oh, and if you aren't clear of my reasoning behind something, just ask...and in case it isn't obvious, I used pn to denote the nth prime number. Sorry about the cheap scan...I don't know how to use Latex... Asymptotic formula for Mertens' Function

Yeah, when your summing things that are added together like that it is easier to split the sum in two.

Working through Differential Forms by David Bachman
fuhrerkeebs replied to revprez's topic in Mathematics
I don't really know what you want to understand better, but I'll give it a shot: Think of a tangent space as the set of all vectors that are tangents to some point on an nmanifold. Therefore, the tangent space is an (n1)dimensional surface. Since the tangent space is an (n1)dimensional surface, the product of Rn and the tangent space of some point on a surface in Rm is an n(m1)dimensional space. I don't really know if that's what you want to know, but... 
If f(x)=O(g(x)) that just means that for large enough x and some constant c, f(x)<=c*g(x). You can use this to give bounds on certain limits, like f(x), if f(x)=g(x)+O(h(x)), because we know that lim x>infinity g(x)h(x) <= lim x>infinity f(x) <= lim x>infinity g(x)+h(x). I don't really know what you mean by "how the big O's cancel," so I can't help you out there.

Eh, I actually consider the Calc BC exam to be the easiest one I've taken thus far...I've found the history ones to be the hardest...

That's because in the negative numbers alot of the values of the function are complex. Anyways, I don't know if you can find the integral exactly or not, but you can certainly find bounds on the integral.

Wana Believe/Reject Space Bending Theories ?
fuhrerkeebs replied to Deviation's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
I'm on my knees...please don't smite me! 
Wana Believe/Reject Space Bending Theories ?
fuhrerkeebs replied to Deviation's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
What is this heresy you speak of!? Star Trek...fiction? Nope, I don't believe you swansont, that is not what I have been hearing since childhood. 
Can you take the derivative of this?
fuhrerkeebs replied to Johnny5's topic in Analysis and Calculus
Ha. 
Wana Believe/Reject Space Bending Theories ?
fuhrerkeebs replied to Deviation's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
You can't. Well, solves that problem. 
All of the laws of special relativity are special cases of general relativity (hence the word "special"), and special relativity has been verified to great accuracy. It explains gravitational redshift, light bending around the sun, and the previously unexplained motion of mercury. This should be sufficient proof for you, unless you're like those creationist nutcases and you like to toss out evidence from the real world because it doesn't fit your warped perception of reality.

Yeah, now that you mention it the velocity of car B isn't mentioned. I didn't notice that they didn't mention it, however, because of the screen.