Unity+

I am looking for in depth reasons for why division by zero must remain undefined.

One of many reasons why division by 0 is undefined is due to the following reason:

Let a equal some number and the following be true:

a*0 = 0

Now, let's assume we had a variable b, some constant, and the following is true:

a/b = c

If we set b = 0, the problem would be that we could have multiple solutions for a, if we tried to solve for it.

a/0 = c.

a could be 1, 2, 3, or any number for that matter.

That is one of the reasons why it is undefined.

EDIT: I think this article explains it better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero.

Edit: note that the article itself even highlights another, similar product. Also, rubbing it into the wound does no good. It requires to be injected into the wound. Hemostatics that work on the surface and are part of trauma bandages (such as cellulose based systems) already exist. So if you think that part is revolutionary, then you are about 10 years late to the party (could be off, but by 2008 there was already a lot of data from already commercialized product, so quite some time before that I guess).

I think the revolutionary part of the product comes from the speed and efficiency of the product. I'm not denying that there have been previous products that the intention of doing the same thing.

 

To summarize, from the short sales pitches there is little in term of uniqueness. You cannot even claim that it has less side effects as those have not been tested yet. That would be the role of trials. A thing that is also lacking in the pitch is to separate them from their competitors. At least I would have expected a statement that it acts much faster than other polymers or something to that effect. In order to show impact, they would need to demonstrate the clinical utility, which, based on the article, has not been established yet.

So be it, but we shall see soon.

 

To me, revolutionary would require some unique and novel function. It seems to have both benefits of sealants and heomstatics, but again, detailed performance data would be required to see whether it is any better than what you can get. At least none of the functions are new by itself. On top of it there are a large range of hemostatics under trial (or just coming out of) so it certainly is not a product that exists in isolation. And some older ones have more clinical data to indicate utility (or lack thereof), which, from my understanding, is not available yet for this product.

From what I can see the most unique aspect is the age of the CEO.

I'm not really concerned about someone's opinion on the novelty of the product, rather I am concerned with the benefits of the product itself and how it will save lives, as it claims.

 

Also it is very similar to claims from other polymers used to promote the coagulation cascade. Again, the description does not highlight uniqueness to me. I am not saying there isn't but from the tidbits so far I do not see it. Maybe it is faster? But then I would need clinically performance data as in vitro tests are for these types of reactions usually not very conclusive. From what I understand they are still in the pre-trial phase. Not surprisingly, they do not disclose actual relevant data at this point (which is normal procedure).

I am going to assume they have work to show for the product. If they don't, then we continue on.

 

Why do you think that the other products have more severe side effects? Metastudies indicate no negative effects on a variety of sealents and hemostatics (at least for polymer based ones).

http://reference.medscape.com/drugs/hemostatics

Here is information about hemostatics. Whether they do happen, the point is they can and have a likelyhood of occurring. Tell me if this reference is viable or not.

I am not sure about the precise properties but considering that there are other hemostatics I do not see it as revolutionary per se. Maybe it has some added benefits (ease of use maybe?) that would make it an improvement over existing products. The article itself is a bit light on the science to be certain.

Considering that a majority of hemostatics have many more side effects, while this you just rub on the wound, I don't see how it isn't revolutionary.

 

When our gel technology is used, three aspects of hemostasis are enhanced to quickly and effectively stop bleeding. Immediately after application, our gel stimulates the clotting process by physically holding pressure in the damaged blood vessel. The gel then rapidly activates the accumulation of platelets, which bind to the site of the injury to create a platelet mesh. Our gel completes hemostasis by accelerating the binding of the clotting protein, fibrin, to the platelet mesh, resulting in blood coagulation and a stable clot.

Through initiating and amplifying the body’s natural clotting mechanism, our gel is able to quickly form a strong clot and stop bleeding, even in severe wounds.

This was on their site.

 

Landolina is now the cofounder and CEO of Suneris, a biotech company that manufactures the gel. Suneris announced last week that it would begin to ship VetiGel to veterinarians later this summer. Humans won't be far behind.

When injected into a wound site, the gel can form a clot within 12 seconds and permanently heal the wound within minutes, Landolina says.

"The fastest piece of equipment we have measures every 12 seconds," Landolina tells Business Insider. "So we know that it happens in less than 12 seconds."

The science that makes this all possible is surprisingly basic.

Each batch of gel begins as algae, which is made up of tiny individual polymers. If you break those polymers down into even tinier pieces, "kind of like Lego blocks," Landolina says, you can put them into the gel and inject that gel into a wound site.

Once it hits the damaged tissue, whether it's open skin or a biopsied soft organ — livers, kidneys, spleens — the gel instantly forms a mesh-like structure.

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-17-year-old-invented-vetigel-stops-bleeding-instantly-2015-6

I think this is revolutionary. It will dramatically change how Healthcare is done.

Hello, my name is Fred

 

I am trying to predict the outcome of competitive counter-strike global offensive matches by using data that I stored.

 

Matches are 5v5 and there are 30 rounds per match

Entry kill ratio: the ratio at which the players manage to make the entry kill (kill the first enemy without dying)

 

The data that I have:

 

TEAM 1 :

 

allu 1.81, get_right 1.18, forest 1.17, friberg 0.8, xizt 1.27, AVERAGE 1.246

This is the entry kill ratio for each player for this team on this particular map.

Round win % after getting first (entry) kill: 77.22%

 

TEAM 2:

 

maniac 0.95, x6 1.01, kennys 1.48, rpk 0.97, apex 0.91, AVERAGE 1.064

This is the entry kill ratio for each player for this team on this particular map.

Round win % after getting first (entry) kill: 72.78%

 

I know this is not an easy task, I'm usually pretty good with numbers but I've been bashing my head around this for over an hour and I cannot seem to figure it out.

 

Trying to "predict" the outcome of a 30 round game, considering that as soon as a team reaches 16 rounds won, the game is over.

 

If anyone has any idea how to do this, please let me know!! thanks

 

 

the ratio at which the players manage to make the entry kill (kill the first enemy without dying)

What do you mean by ratio? Is it the amount of kills per seconds till the first death?

Also, there are many factors that influence the outcome of the game. Kill ratio in terms of first death has no affect, really. It can give a better idea, but not a good idea.

I don't know if this has been done before, but I thought of an idea where people can install a java program that takes all the mouse clicks from your computer and sends it to a webserver so people can make apps that use those mouse clicks to carry out a function, i.e. making music from all the user's mouse clicks or making an analysis app.

What do you think?

Let's say AI becomes so advanced that they are human-like. Will it ever happen?

I think we should investigate how the outerspace treaty would work based on how countries react to international seas Treat by the United Nations. It could give some perspective.

I took a whack at the conjecture, and here is a function I developed, though it could be unhelpful:

 

Yep. It is a modular arithmetic and GCD problem I guess

Unity - just reading up about the conjecture at Open Problem Garden and I noticed this which might help stop you feeling down if you are struggling

 

I am struggling somewhat with the problem. Thanks for the reassurance.

I think the modularity comes from how the problem can be represented:

I guess you could represent this as a clock with six hands and differently-sized gears. Question is will there be any time when the gear rotations will allow such conditions to have the point on each hand to be a certain distance from the other hands.

So, I saw the definition of the conjecture:

A runner is said to be lonely at time t if he is at a distance of at least 1/k from every other runner at time t. The lonely runner conjecture states that each runner is lonely at some time.

And then it asks "Can the Lonely runner conjecture be proved for k≥8?"

What confuses me about the statement is it seems it is asking if it can be proven for smaller distances. Why would that be difficult to prove? I thought it would be more trivial that way(not saying it's a simple problem). Would it not be harder to prove it for larger distances?

When receiving an email sent from an iPad using the Mail app containing one or more attachments, I also receive extra text file attachments. These extra attachments appear to contain any email text apparently typed after the file or files were attached. In other words, any text typed after attaching a file ends up in a text file attachment and not in the body of the email! I'm using Outlook 2010 and 2013.

 

It seems to me to be a bug with the iPad Mail app as it only occurs with emails from them.

 

I've told the iPad users to get a proper computer!

 

Anyone have any thoughts or experienced the same?

 

That would be a weird bug unless the technique they are using to attach files is very 'wrong.' Unless the server is sending the message in the wrong way in return, this should never happen.

ANALOGY, for God's sake look it up. If intentional fires of various kinds were not maintained in electrical generation plants here and there, there would be no idiotic arguments on the Internet.

I am confused. This was simply an analogy?

It doesn't remove the fact that your claims have no evidence.

I am done here.

It is pretty much what you had asked for. What did you want me to "retract" anyhow?

 

Anyway, by now we have pretty much established that yes, kindly old Uncle Harold is a skeptic. Pretty much mystified why everyone isn't, actually.

 

There have been books written on how to go about converting our kind, again, like manuals for missionaries more than anything else. As far as I know, no such works have been necessary to "convert" people to quantum mechanics or similar legitimate science.

I wanted you to retract your statement, in regard to our "debate," that we know that intentional fires are what are a part of the problem and are occurring in this context, as you have stated.

I assure you I am not paid to do any of this and I do my very best to be truthful. This includes the arson investigation thread in "Science Education" by the way. Hopefully it will be enlightening for our dear brother Unity.

I don't see anything in the thread that is useful for this discussion.

Santilli is a well known crackpot. Why would anyone care about being attacked by him. Ignore it.

Well, that makes things a bit more clear. I was about to do my research.

yes, i agree. this entire situation is beyond madness. much of it completely disregards the scientific method and involves weird special interests that do not interest me. it is near impossible to determine which individuals and groups are at play, who is who, etc. there is much deception, twisting of words, conspiracy theories, and threats going on here. we have much important scientific work to do, and this needs to stop and be resolved asap. one thing i do know is that Prof. Christian Corda does not deserve this. by exposing this for investigation, hopefully that facts can be revealed.

 

concerning the tech, i'm still not entirely sure. from my research so far, my current understanding is that the "MagneGas fuel tech" and "intermediate controlled nuclear synthesis (fusion) tech" are legitimate, which both have patents and industrial applications. this group of physicists have two major theories that they are working on. 1) this technology is based on the so-called theory of "hadronic mechanics", which has been verified in the laboratory to some extent. 2) the so-called "iso-gravitation and cosmology" theory, which has evidently has not been experimentally verified and/or is based on serious misconceptions. i guess they do some advertising, much of it online which can be found on google, but they're having difficulty getting it out onto the US market. evidently, many of the individuals related to these theories and tech are making these ridiculous claims and threats. but again, all of this should be subjected to investigation.

Something can have a patent and not work, I think. I think some of Tesla's patents are examples. However, correct me if I am wrong.

Oh Jesus. Look up "analogy" for me, okay?

 

I will start a thread devoted to arson investigation in what I hope is an appropriate venue on this site.

Either present evidence of your claim or retract your statement/admit your statement is false.

EDIT: This is going to be the last time or I think you will be found guilty of breaking the forum rules that require evidence for a claim in this section or other sections of this forum for that matter.

I can follow an argument and do my homework. I have been doing plenty of both today. It is fun and easy.

 

You should try it.

Seems like you are dodging the question. Provide evidence or admit you are incorrect.

This is why I hate when politics get involved in science...

I don't know if the allegations are true or not and I am not going to assume anything at the moment. However, the "MagneGas" seems to be legitimate, but I don't know if it is or not. Why isn't it being advertised or even investigated further?

Not so. I am stating that fires have both intentional and accidental causes, and that mere assumptions are insufficient to tell one from another.

 

To use an analogy, let us say that the geological record indicates variations in climate of an "accidental" or solely natural causality. Then it is proposed that such processes have been supplanted by another, perhaps IRRESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOOLING WITH MOTHER NATURE. Far fetched, I know, but it is only an analogy.

 

This being an extraordinary claim, it would call for extraordinary evidence. Again, remember the burden of proof does fall upon the prosecutor.

But if you are stating that there have been intentional fires, can you provide the evidence that they were intentional?

 

It still makes no sense. Apache software is produced by volunteers (which makes it "unofficial" by your definition):

http://www.apache.org/

 

 

The official version is produced by volunteers.

Also, you are permitted to produce your own version of Apache. And you are even permitted to offer it for sale. (As long as you comply with the license terms.) It is no more or less official than any other version. Yours would be the official "Sensei Apache".

I think his point is the intention of the authors of each product.

I think it has been stated by many other programmers is that standardization of a language is in context with the standard operating system used. .NET is mainly a Windows-based framework that has the intention of running .NET applications, i.e. C# applications.

Wikipedia:

 

 

The .NET Framework (pronounced dot net) is a software framework developed by Microsoft that runs primarily on Microsoft Windows. It includes a large class library known as Framework Class Library (FCL) and provides language interoperability (each language can use code written in other languages) across severalprogramming languages. Programs written for .NET Framework execute in a software environment (as contrasted to hardware environment), known as Common Language Runtime (CLR), an application virtual machine that provides services such as security, memory management, and exception handling. FCL and CLR together constitute .NET Framework.

 

 

C#^{[note 2]} (pronounced as see sharp) is a multi-paradigm programming language encompassing strong typing, imperative, declarative, functional, generic, object-oriented(class-based), and component-oriented programming disciplines. It was developed by Microsoft within its .NET initiative and later approved as a standard by Ecma(ECMA-334) and ISO (ISO/IEC 23270:2006). C# is one of the programming languages designed for the Common Language Infrastructure.

On the other hand, the other languages are not as closed in to a "mother" operating system because they weren't design with intention to a particular OS in the first place. I think that presents his point.

Oh, you have evidence? Put up or shut up.

 

Is that a reasonable request? Hell yes, and logical too. I will concede that irrationality has invaded the subject as so many of the Faithful cling to AGW with messianic zeal.

There is evidence. However, evidence that you will accept is a different discussion.

A new "consensus", it appears. Ad hominem attacks more suited to a schoolyard. If you colleagues would note the topic it should hardly surprise you to see views contrary to your own. If you are trying to convince me of your noble support of impartial science, you are failing conspicuously.

Not at all, my position is that such calamities can and do have origins in the natural world. If you wish to prove AGW is responsible, you must do so, and back up the allegation. Not every fire is arson, or would you argue so?

It is not an attack on character, rather an proclamation of how far irrationality has reached into the debate, considering rationality is based on logic and reasoning, implication of evidence.

Hello welcome to the "Whatever Theory" thread.

My theory is that same species, from same geographic locations, posses

certain colors and color ranges that are unique to their particular

species.

Well, considering that a species succeed by surviving in particular environments and then having offspring that live on and animals have to acquire certain traits in order to survive in such environments, having similar traits in a geographic location can be common, if this is true.