Strange

I'm picturing this like a Western: you standing on a deserted street with the spray clipped to your belt. Arms by your side, fingers twitching slightly. Suddenly a figure emerges from a bar and prepares to spit on the floor. Before he can move you have drawn and fired sprayed. Nice animation showing the how big the effect of reducing contact is: This also applies to increasing herd immunity (because that also breaks the chain of transmission). So as herd immunity increases, the limitations on social contact can be reduced.

You would also need to account for the greater delay for those who have tested positive with no symptoms. It could be up to two weeks before they develop symptoms and two or more weeks before they become critically ill, die or recover. You would need to track the numbers over several weeks to be able to calculate a more accurate figure. Much harder to account for is the number of people who have the contracted the disease but have not been identified (by testing or displaying symptoms). This will tend to bring the fatality rate down. Modelling can estimate how many more people there might be by looking at rates of transmission in the population. You can probably rely on the fatality rate estimates from WHO and other researchers because they will have attempted to take all these factors into account.

Thanks. I didn't think they would test cardboard (I assumed it was with respect to work surfaces and similar things)

Looking at the large package the delivery guy just dropped off and wonder "what about cardboard?"

You need [math] tags around the Latex. (Note that there is also a bug in the forum SW that means it won't be rendered until you refresh the page)

SHOW US THE DIAGRAM

Go on then. Show us the diagram.

Do you mean that because, in this case, it has no free will, in normal circumstance it does? @ others: I can’t moderate in this thread but there is no reason to suddenly get irrational and offensive just because someone mentions the “R word”. Grow up

Interesting. But I wonder about people (like me) who have no inner voice or narration; do we still subvocalise but are completely unaware of it? (This is fascinating, but ever so slightly off topic. Maybe we should ask for this to be split off.)

That is an interesting question: do people who hear voices (whether schizophrenic or for other reasons) lose their internal voice (if they ever had one) or can they still have their internal dialog ("don't listen to those voices out there", "but I can't help it"). There are people who hear voices but they are just an annoyance. The problem with disorders like schizophrenia (as I understand it) is that they are also often associated with delusional beliefs which can lead to them acting irrationally. And there are people with schizophrenia who learn to live fairly normally with the voices. I heard a fantastic (and very sad) interview with a woman who had learned to live with schizophrenia; the voices were always there talking and shouting at her. She just had to try and carry on with her life.

That may well be true (and the sorts of things these voices say, are not things you would normally say to yourself). But I think it is important to realise that people hear them as external: ie. as if they were coming from a loudspeaker or an invisible person. Not the same as when you talk to yourself in your head.

From what I have read (and conversations I have had) it is no clear that *most* people have this inner monologue. (Obviously those who have it are stunned to find that others don't; and those who don't are baffled by the concept.) I have no idea if there is any connection between this and belief, or otherwise, in free will. I don't know if there is any correlation with aphantasia, either. But surely, people make decisions by debating with their inner voice, not just doing what it says. There is no evidence of that. So, almost certainly, no. But surely, people make decisions by debating with their inner voice, not just doing what it says. There is no evidence of that. So, almost certainly, no. And, note that this has nothing to do with the voices heard by people suffering from schizophrenia and other disorders: those voices are (or appear to be) external, not an inner voice.

I'm not sure what you mean by "complex". Obviously not the mathematical sense, as there are no imaginary numbers involved. And not "complicated" because it is just a simple ratio. I assume that is because they are wrong. You still have not explained what "arc of definition" means. It is an apparently meaningless phrase, even when translated into your language. Pi is well defined. The trigonometric functions are well defined. The only thing that seems to be undefined is the purpose of this thread.

Well, there is an exact value. You just can't write it down as a number.

These two powers are not connected to one another. One is the value of the density and the other is the units of density. The first one is just the value of the density being shown in scientific notation: 1.24x103 = 1,240 The second one is representing the fact that the units of density are mass / volume; in other words kg / m3. Dividing by a power is the same as multiplying by the negative of the power, so the units of density can also be written as kg m-3. You have one value measured in kg and another value measured in kg m-3. If your calculation is correct then, as Ghideon suggests, the result should have the units of volume (m3) because the units can be multiplied, divided or cancelled like numbers.. This process of analysing the units in an equation is called dimensional analysis and is a valuable way of checking that a calculation makes sense. It can also, as in this case, tell you which number needs to be divided by which.

What is between 5/6 Pi and 17/18 Pi?

I just tried Google translate to see if "arc of definition" meant something difference when translated into Russian. It doesn't seem to. So I have no idea what this means. Are you thinking in terms of an arc (presumably one subtended by the angle in question) that can be used to define the sine (or other) function?

What does "arc of definition" mean? Do you mean "definition of [an] arc" ?

And they do (whichever definition you use). So what is your question, or the point you are trying to make? Well, obviously you do need the definition otherwise you could not calculate the value. So what is your question, or the point you are trying to make?

The first one is the exact value. The second is, obviously, an approximation. But I thought your question was about the definition of trig functions, not the value for a specific angle. So what do you actually want to know? (Your first post was rambling and incomprehensible; try splitting it up into a series of short simple statements, followed by a single question. And maybe a diagram.) There are many ways of defining the sine function. Some are given here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine (That is probably also available in your favourite language.)

Please define exactly what "building up of time" means. Also please provide some evidence that (a) this happens and (b) that it causes the observed effects. Please show your calculations.

Ravell suspended again for a refusal to accept that the rules apply to them

So bad, we banned him twice

There is also the fact that when a new virus is encountered, the dangers are unknown so it makes sense to try and contain it as quickly as possible.

Great demonstration of why correlation is not causality: