studiot

I didn't. But since you ask It's a process that is no sadly longer required or taught in middle school maths (13 - 16 years).

Did I not already acknowledge that in my reply to exchemist ? edit Actually I hate the inane input editor even more than I hate AI.

When incorrectly answering 'no' to a question with a yes/no answer; that is not as good an answer as the question by a country mile.

The reasons are complicated. Here are a couple of links showing how these figures are compiled and digging into some of the reasons and identifying the major ones is carried out. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2868286/ https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/howhaslifeexpectancychangedovertime/2015-09-09 I note your link and discussion was about Wales. General polulations in medieaval Wales were significantly less mobile than today so there was more local inbreeding, leading to an increase in any condition that lead to an early demise.

There is no such thing as a thinking or intelligent computer program. iNow is right in that other models, such as the symbolic algebra section of Wolfram alpha is more suited to technical stuff. Equally as he says, that model require well phrased questions within its capability and the symbolic algebra conventions. But it does not 'reason', just checks agains the rules, rather better and more quickly than a human does.

Agreed. +1

I disagree Sometimes their answer is just plain wrong for whatever reason (just as I was with the PI thing the other day). Several members have already posted clear numerical or algebraic etc examples of such 'answers', despite very simple clear questions.

Gosh that was a silly mistake, a very silly mistake. It's obviously the season for it. Thank you for putting it right. +1

Don't know that one. But Rhyes mean something quite different in my neck of the woods. The saying is 'Beware the Rhyne', which accurately predicted the outcome of the last pitched battle fought on English soil.

I think you need to know a little bit more about numbers before you can appreciate the answers Some nmembers, including myself, tried to steer you towards this in earlier threads. Firstly Pi is indeed an irrational number, but that does not mean what you claim at all. 1/3 is an irrational number that repeats forever in the decimal expansion. Pi is more than that it is trancendental, which means it does not repeat. That is in simple terms the difference between irrational numbers and trancendental numbers like Pi. But there is more to it than that. I assume you know what integer numbers are and what their properties are. But what do you know about the rational numbers and their properties ? How much do you know about irrational number is and how they differs from integers and rational numbers ?

In our little valley They closed the colliery down And the pithead baths is a supermarket now Empty gurneys red with rust Roll to rest admist the dust And the pithead baths is a supermarket now 'Cause it's hard Duw it's hard It's harder than they will ever know And it's they must take the blame The price of coal's the same But the pithead baths is a supermarket now They came down here from England Because our outputs low Briefcasеs full of bank clerks That had not never been bеlow And they'll close the valley's oldest mine Pretending that they're sad But don't you worry butty bach We're really very glad 'Cause it's hard Duw it's hard Harder than they will ever know And it's they must take the blame For the price of coal's the same But the pithead baths is a supermarket now

I think it worth posting at least the final paragraph, which is entirely human generated. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance --- Jefferson

I understand that relevant scientists are satisfied that gravity waves ( ripples) have been detected. Not really my field, you should look up LIGO gravity wave experiments. But these detections are af weak variations in the steady state gravity force experienced at measuring points. Further I understand it takes cataclysmic activity to generate them. Also I suggest you post your hypothesis in full here before the moderators instruct you to do so, as per the rules of this forum. As it is now the witching hour I wish you a good night.

Nevertheless sound waves (or any other waves) do not exert a constant force. That is a definition od a wave. Equally ripples are a form od wave. Yes but you can be still relative to something else, in this case themass or source of the ripples. And Cavendish did not detect any ripples with just such an experimeny.

Surely ripples move ? If you stand still in the water on the shore and let some ripple move past you is the force constant or does it vary as the ripples pass ? Your experience suggests neither of these are true, yet experience tells us that both happen.

No offence meant about your exam, I am genuinely sorry to hear this. However silly mistakes huh ? I wonder if just perhaps you were up too late recently and that slowed you down. Even at you age, too many late nights will reduce your 'operational efficiency. And you seem to be logged in here at times that are late for me in England, let alone 80o east.

When I say the graphs are all the same, I mean that they are all of the same equation that governs the process that produces the graph. Chemically, radioactive decay is a first order reaction. I am using first order because there are other orders for different chemical reactions. The first graph shows how the quantity or concentration of the reactant diminishes or falls as the reaction proceeds. The second graph shows how the product build up (the reaction never quite finishes do you know the term aymptote ?) Becasue the the equation is very simple it can be solved - which means we can determine a specific formula defining the quantity ot reactant or product at any given time. The important point here is that using that formula we can adjust the axes to give a highly preferable straight line. The equation concerned is a differential equation and is the least useful, though most general point of view. [math]Rate = \frac{{dQ}}{{dt}} = - kQ[/math] Now relativity says that you can either adjust the axes or adjust the curve depending upon the point of view you wish to take. This is the connection to relativity. Now can you tell me the difference between those three graphs and this one, which also has two rectangular axes and a plot. And then I will explain why this difference is crucial to understanding all the fancy maths that is being bandied about, like General Relativity, QM, tensors and many other things.

This is a good and natural question. the short answer is yes. But sadly in this brave new world of ours, we have to be a bit circumspect about advertising that information.

Here is another point of view. Here is a graph I posted recently in another thread Here is another version of the same graph And here is yet another version don't worry about the numbers, just look at the shapes. All three have their own special uses ie they tell you different things about a first order chemical reaction. In other words the map is not the terrority.

Two things I noticed today. Firstly google search is no longer offereing translations (at least today) Don't know if we are now supposed to use only the google lens app. But I don't have access to that Secondly some searches are no longer headed by an AI summary. Big g needs to wake up before it goes the way of Big Blue and M$ before it.

Yes a blueprint for other physical quantities. But ones when you attemp to discuss relativity drawing those trumpets amounts to saying that the equipotential lines distort the actual coordiantes you used to draw them. This is different from the previous video from the same author showing contour lines on a map ( this appeared briefly on the second one as well) So remember the plot you are creating is say length, length, mass or length length, force or whatever - space that is purely imaginary

There are lots of 2D and 3D coordinate systems each denoting a different space referenced by those coordinate systems. In real life we only possess the one such system - the physical space we are in. So we have to make do with that and imagine the spaces that the others refer to. The equipotentials are not part of real space so we substitute a real world goordinate to draw the graph. Does this help ?

One of the things about Maths is that it has many branches of ' Maths knowledge'. The trouble with this is you need to know a little bit from several branches (thankfully not all) to do any maths at all. The consequence of this is that Maths is taught in small capsules containing only the relevant bits at the time. I call this the spiral approach because the next circuit of the spiral you revist all the old bit quickly and fill in some gaps, expanding you knowledge like a spiral, maybe taking in a sub-branch on the way. So your learning goes round and round the spiral whilst hopefully your knkwledge and understanging increases. In fact most sciences are like this.

See if you can make anything from this video. (6 minutes) I think he does the key points rather well. Note that he introduces two important vector fields, both of which are direction fields A note to @Dhillon1724X This also shows the key universal driver that has relevance to your chortons and to the Higgs field., if you look hard enough.

The thing I don't like about the trampoline 'visualisations' is that they can be misleading. It is not the grid lines that are distorted. These are set when the coordinate system is set and cannot be distorted. In fact distortion is not the right word at all. The diagrams are as shown simple because at least one of the axes is straight, which is not the case with natural axes.