studiot

At least some of them did, yes. You will find this subject discussed in useful detail in this very recent book.

Even if the real world is finite? I think this very important conversation got lost in a welter of other extraneous things. Genady is mathematically correct. I pointed you at the maths of this. It rather depends whether you want to regard Heine-Borel as a set-theoretic or geometric or topological theorem . Cantor started it with his definition of an infinite set as being a set that one can put part of the set (a subset) into one-to-one with the whole set. The HB theorem says that you can 'cover' an infinite set with a finite number of subsets. Loosely speaking that means you can find a partner for every member of the infinite set in a finite number of subsets. The simplest example is one dimensional and we can incorporate infinite on a line within a single subset called an interval. https://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dwilkins/Courses/MAU23203/MAU23203_Mich2019_Slides/MAU23203_Mich2019_HeineBorel_Slides.pdf The bottom line is that there is no largest number in our universe since it has at least one dimension, which is enough to provide the relevant subset to cover infinity.

You guys are talking about the Heine- Borel finite covering or patching theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heine–Borel_theorem

I seem to remember something called Moore's law. Applying this to computer memory I wonder does anyone remember the ZX81, which had 1K of memory Then the spectrum which had a whopping 16K so much more space. scale up few years and we have the laughingly called 1M PC and onto to today's computers in the gigabyte range. Big is getting bigger and bigger by Moore's law.

Touche +1 Edit I prefer the humorous part of this thread and your post.

Well the bit where he slams the acknowledgments to the Tuscalora tribe is the most interesting.

I'm sorry if I am not making myself clear. The bit that I consider is the underlying assumption that the statement in the article I linked to Is actually true. In other words the first question to answer before wasting time of discussion about anything else in the article is Is that assumption true or justified ? I did try to follow up the article from your information but hit an american paywall. I did discover the Jerry Coyne (who is JC, is he as reliable ?) and his article https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/01/15/ideology-stomps-all-over-chemistry-in-a-new-paper/ But I was not impressed by his style either. Perhaps swansont is correct and this is the sort of nonsense that only american society can afford to indulge in. So I hereby formally return it to them lock stock and barrel.

OK Dim, how do you tell a Scotsman a joke ? I would like to set a context for your use of 'free market' You do realise that the whole economic concept is based on equal bargaining power and so is too primitive to be of use in the real world. I fail to see how shariah offers equal or indeed any bargaining power.

Nor do I, but I prefaced my remarks with furthermore I understand the important discussion part of the op to be the line Which surely applies pretty generally? I specified Edinburgh (and RGU, which is not in Edinburgh) because I am not familiar with the requirements for other colleges even in the UK.

The science of handling large numbers, either large because they have (too) many digits or because the value is too large goes back hundreds of years. Many schemes for breaking up calculations and other data processing were developed during that time before computers. But we still have to use some of them today as the data is too large to 'fit' into a single computer. The instances of this were originally developed by those wanting to produce accurate scientific tables eg Roemer and Kepler, Napier. Later insurance companies and actuaries carried on this development. Most recently the largest data handling has been done by meteorological workers. This started when Walker first started gathering global data via the electric telegraph. So your idea of event data gathering is not so far from the mark.

Look up googolplex (note spelling carefully) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex

Useful background. Thanks +1

I'm sorry I don't understand, though I agree that the gender and ethnicity distribution amongst pharmacy students (not just at school) would suggest the proposal is bunk. When my daughter did her medical degree at Edinburgh, the only compulsory A level was Chemistry (I was suprised that biology was not required although she also offered that). More recently she has completed a Masters in Pharmacy at RGU and there were definitely more females than males on the course, many were indeed of asian ethnicity. Additional there were students from many middle eastern countries, some pursuing doctorates. Whatever, the subjects studied could be said to be Chemistry, Chemistry, Chemistry The year she took up a post at Royal Devon and Exeter, of the 8 new starters, there were either 1 or 2 males, the rest being female. There were actually zero white males. A side issue, was Mrs Thatcher doing Chemistry when she acted politically, against the trend at the time, to push very hard for the CFC reduction and eventual ban ? Or is doing Environmental Chemistry not Chemistry either ?

Good morning. That's a long opening post. Although it contains a lot of thoughts, I was unable to ascertain what you wanted to discuss or question you wanted to ask. I am guessing that English is not your first language as although you have offered some in depth material / sources, some of the wording is a bit strange, we we need to cooperate straightening that out. I note your idea /use of the Gompertz type curve, also referred to a a logistics curve or a sigmoid curve. Interesting. However a couple of points of fact. 1) 11 billion years ?. The Earth is only 4point something years old. 2) Charles Darwin did not offer a 'theory of evolution'. Look at the actual title of his paper/book.

Just a small question, but what do you mean by 'chemist' ? Mrs Thatcher was a chemist, as was the chief accountant of British Gas. The, of course, there are pharmacists. I wonder how what the ethnic dist of these 'chemists' might be.

Yes, perhaps you missed it but I have already mention the evidence. I am in Yes, perhaps you missed it but I have already alluded to the scratch marks. At the moment I am in Exeter so no in a position to post pictures. edit and struggling with this poxy unfamiliar laptop

No worries.

Good you have shown it for yourself as should observers. You may wish to get more out of this question by investigating the bicarbonate buffer. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=bicarbonate+buffer&iflsig=AK50M_UAAAAAY8vtbgWfo9iJwpG9_YTSgvXr7TS-7hdY&gbv=2&oq=bicarbonate+buffer&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0i512l10.1050.6838.0.7150.18.11.0.7.7.0.210.1426.1j9j1.11.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.18.1700.qXn4PkY5H1s The bicarbonate buffer plays an hugely important role in life science, climate science, oceanography and other places.

It is certainly a very significant reason but not something that can be proven. As Lorenz says, 10 only has two factors so 10 = 5 x 2 and we have two hands with 5 fingers on each. and we see many primitive and not so primitive cultures from around the world that have an equivalent scratch mark of the '5 bar gate' where counting goes 1, 11 111, 1111 and then a new symbol for 5. So 5 units make a 'hand' and 2 hands make 10. But also as lorenz says, 12 = 2 x 3 x 4 and the next such is 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 = 60 Which brings us to the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians who had a number systems based on 60. These numbers which lead to our modern measures of time and angle. Interestingly the ancient cultures in the Americas has even more complicated bases (360) as they measure calendar time not hours, minutes and seconds as we do. A fascinating subject. Thank you for raising it +1

I was suprised at this response from an intelligent, well educated person of significant experience. I haven't seen this book (yet?) so I would be interested in your assessment if you do. The Cambridge Student Guides series are not formal texts or treatises but specially written to provide a depth of understanding not realised in normal textbooks. They are written by modern experts from around the world and some of the one I have show nex material or approaches not seen elsewhere. As such they contain material whch may be of undergrad level in some courses and postgrad in others depending upon the main coverage of any particular course. The single topic volumes such as Lagrangians and Hamiltonians; Entropy; and Vectors and Tensor are particularly well presented in my opinion. It would be a brave man indeed who cannot learn something from each or any one.

Thank you so much for making this effort on my behalf. +1 I have been looking for a resonably priced copy of MTW for some time, bu noone seems to want to pass theirs on. As luck would have it, I found one (hardcopy no less) of a 2021 version new but shop soiled at a bearable price. Fantastic but a lot to wade through as I do not know the book. In particular I could not find reference to the FLWR metric in the index so I wonder if you could oblig by beefing up your reference. !300 pages is alot to read through to find something.

@sethoflagos You might find this book of interest. It is due to be published in early 2023 and a part of the Cambridge University 'Student's Handbooks' series in applied maths and physics. A student's guide to the Navier Stokes Equations Justin E Garvin Cambridge University Press.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-64352634 Interesting observation of UFO shaped clouds

Hello John and welcome. I am suprised some sailors have't yet replied. Anyway I think I can see what you are trying to do, but I have a couple of comments / questions to clear up, I am suprised you are not satisfied with =/- 1.5 lbs as that is less than 0.1% variation. Someone's sandwiches will be greater than that. You seem to have contradicted yourself. You say you are keeping the underwater volume constant but also seem to refer to it as the Y value? I am guessing that you want to keep this volume constant to keep the bouyance force constant in magnitude, though obviously its application point will change wilh heel angle.? However this will only keep it in force for a stationary boat. As soon as the boat moves momentum forces will enter and change the dynamics. Also I would not expect a stationay boat to be heeled over. 1750 lbs displacement means a what, 12 to 15 foot boat ?

My guess is that the referred article was written by the same till operator that gave me the wrong change this afternoon.