andrewcellini

well numbers does not start from 0...

that depends on what you're considering or working with, the smallest number in the set of non negative integers is indeed 0 so that'd be a nice beginning. but yes, the reals don't have a "beginning."

and as ajb mentions 0 is a convenient spot in the reals to count forward or negative.

1. I do not like people

3. I have no social skills

I think that'd be a good reason to go to school and get your undergraduate degree. You're going to meet people that have interests similar to yours and be able to work together and exchange ideas, as well as talk with your professors about your ideas and get guidance and help for achieving your goals from people who work or have worked in the fields that you're interested in.

2. I do not want to waste my most productive years

What makes you think you're in your most productive years?

It is clear to me that I am gifted.

You've recognized your strengths, but what are your weaknesses?

I think determining what you are weak in would help you to answer this question; at the very least it might humble you a bit.

I knew a few students in your position when I was a senior (except they took classes at a community college at night and over the summer) who went on to pursue undergraduate degrees and should be getting them this year.

Your kind of a Linux fanboy aren't you... Do you purposely forget to mention to the other people that Linux is a complete mess, no new hardware operates on any of it

source?

edit: i should have prefaced this question by saying this is surprising to me as my macbook pro which has fairly recent hardware (late 2015) is dual booting osx and ubuntu. is there any specific incompatible hardware you can point to?

Why do you want your RAM to always be completely empty & free?

I don't think anyone has said this. The problem cited by Lightmeow is about how much RAM is being used. It isn't clear that they suggested that no RAM should be used at all.

.

 

People will be able to decipher it.

But, again, that doesn't make it correct which seems to be what you're claiming.

where is he?

who is he?

He's been prophecied about for eons.

How long the belief has been held is really irrelevant. What evidence is there for the antichrist?

Also, it isn't really correct to equate the antichrist to the maitreya as buddhists regard it as a future buddha which will bring enlightenment to the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya

And, it doesn't seem correct to equate the antichrist with mahdi either! Mahdi seems to be closer to the christian concept of Jesus in the end times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi

Of the mythological concepts/beings presented, Kalki seems closest to the antichrist in that it is a sort of destructive force that will bring about the "end times." But it hasn't been shown by the OP how these two are the same and not just serving similar purposes in their respective mythologies, and of course there is no evidence presented to substantiate the claim that this being exists.

 

I appreciate your comment, while I never said that my argument was sound, I only said I hoped it was logical and whole.

This is kind of a silly hope; your argument being founded on premises which are not true means that the conclusions you've reached may not hold if reasoned from true premises.

So while you may have conformed to the rules of logic (I haven't read the entire thing as I do not agree with the OP's stretched definition of slavery) in your argument, your conclusion could be meaningless and useless to describing reality.

 

[ot pedantry]

 

E = mc^2 + pc surely not

 

Sqrt(m^2c^4 +p^2c^2) DNE mc^2 + pc

 

[/ot pedantry]

doh, good catch and certainly not pedantic. I'd be happy to have caught that myself but I sucked at aritmetic for a moment

It also implies that matter is made out of energy.

No it doesn't.

Energy is a property of physical systems, not an independent substance. The equation edit: E = sqrt((mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2) thanks imatfaal tells you how much energy is contributed by the mass (which is another property) of, say a point particle, at rest and in relative motion.

IF matter is made out of energy, it is not material either!

well it's not made of energy, so whether or not that conclusion follows (it isn't clear that it would as you don't provide any reasons), your premise is not based in reality but rather a misunderstanding and so the rest can be thrown away.

and as pointed out by Strange, matter is material by definition.

Human capability to comprehend or abstract logic.

This is a bit of a confusing sentence to respond to. Are you saying that these are two possible constraints or did you mean to say "comprehension of?"

If it's the latter, then what are the limits to human comprehension? I agree that it's a possible constraint, though I'm not sure how it's a fault of logic rather than a fault of the "hardware" and its evolution.

By means of science's fundamental basis being logical.

As I pointed out logic is only one part of the scientific method - in predicting the consequences of the theory or hypothesis - but your theory could be only approximately valid for some small scales (if it's valid at all), and you wouldn't know unless you tested it, a lot.

True or false, apply epirical data then use logic as proof.

I'm not sure this statement accurately encapsulates the scientific method.

Without logic science as a whole is void.

Certainly the predictive capability of science would be diminished; we might be left with what could be described as "stamp collecting."

And with logic comes constraints....

What are the constraints on science?

There is little role for the current major religions in science.

I would go one step further in saying that there is no role for the major or minor religions in science, except as the subject of study. It's not clear to me how religion is or could be related to the scientific method's efficacy.

Nevertheless, science - the body of people who are scientists and their embedding - needs a religion.

Why does science need religion? Why do scientists need religion? You do not provide any reasons.

Your definition of science is very odd. What do you mean by scientists "embedding?" The word science typically refers to the body of knowledge gathered by the scientific method or the method itself.

That it has none, at the moment, is a source of problems.

What problems does having no religion cause for science and scientists? How do these problems arise? You do not provide any reasons, again just empty claims.

 

 

 

That is a public houses version of ‘common sense’; in other words, by means of the magic nectare

that's the impression that i'm getting

1.A culmination of all the man-generated BS ever

or

2.Reality simplified to fit human understanding?

are those really the only two options, or are they the only ones you've considered?

Thats a bit of a leap...science distinguishes the mathematical nature of the universe, by means of logic.

you could come up with a logically consistent, mathematical "theory" of the universe (or some aspect of it), and it could be far off from predicting the actual measurable value associated with whatever phenomenon it is describing. science progresses with more than just logic, there's testing and retesting of theories, finding out for what scales it's valid for etc

so what do you mean by "by means of logic?"

Prometheus, what enzyme were you looking at on BRENDA? the enzyme with the smallest Km that i've found was "site-specific DNA-methyltransferase (adenine-specific)" with a Km of 0.00000000000001 mM for DNA Adenine

http://www.brenda-enzymes.org/literature.php?e=2.1.1.72&r=676217

lol duh, this slipped my mind too; that's what i get for starting in the middle of the derivation. the total enzyme is conserved, so the concentration of the enzyme [E] = [E]0 - [ES], where [E]0 is the initial concentration. substitute that in for [E] in your equation and you should arrive at what i got.

In addition to that you have to divide through by Km at some point deriving the Michaelis-Menten equation, which if zero would be undefined.

the derivation in my textbook (Biochemistry 8th ed Campbell and Farrell) and also on this website (http://www.bgu.ac.il/~aflaloc/BioHTML/Goodies/DeriveMMEqn.html) would have you dividing by Km + S

to make this short (and to start somewhat in the middle) you would be at ([E] - [ES])/[ES] = Km

Km[ES] = [E] -[ES]

(Km+)[ES] = [E]

[ES] = [E]/(Km + )

I've been looking at the Michaelis-Menten constant, Km, being zero from a mathematical perspective and it doesn't make any sense - i.e. it breaks the Michaelis-Menten equation (the velocity of a reaction becomes undefined).

wouldn't the velocity always be at Vmax?

assume Km = 0

V = Vmax/(Km + )

V = Vmax /(0 + ) = Vmax/ = Vmax

edit: after thinking about it i don't think this would happen as I just showed above.I forgot that is defined as Km = (Kr + Kcat)/Kf, Kr is the constant of the reverse of binding substrate to the enzyme. Kr and Kcat are positive real numbers, so for Km to be zero they would both have to be zero. and because Vmax = Kcat*[E] where E is the concentration of enzyme (held constant), if Kcat is 0 Vmax is 0 and thus V = 0 when Km = 0.

But does having a Km=0 make any physical sense?

it has a great affinity for whatever substrate it acts on, that's for sure, but i've not been able to come across papers where, given the conditions in the experiment, the Km was equal to zero.

edit: i'm not sure what physical sense to make of it given my addition to my answer above.

Space-time only applies to inertial references.

what makes you think that?

so i guess GR is wrong then? /sarcasm

You require evidence in all things.... Science.... It thinks it has a fullfilling purpose to explore the universe when it refuses to explore God...

last time i checked, science was incapable of thought.

science typically can refer to the body of knowledge gathered by scientists using the scientific method, or the scientific method itself, neither of which can think.

and to comment on "refuses to explore God," you haven't presented evidence that a god exists, and you weren't clear about what god you're talking about, the properties of this being, what its actions in the universe would look like and how it is possible to measure such a thing etc. how could god (scientifically) be explored without having some clue as to what to look for or even evidence that such a thing may exist?

 

You do exactly whats predictable of people when they dont open their mind or understand a different perspective on something...

the problem is not a lack of open minds; i think it's fair to say from viewing your other topics that people are open to your ideas and do ask you for clarifications (for example, you never provided citations as requested in cartoon form by john cuthber). you do not seem to be open to the possibility you are wrong about anything and retreat to outrageous claims that you are being insulted which is not readily apparent.

your original post is based not on well reasoned propositions or on evidence about the real world but was essentially a very short creation myth you made and very much soapboxing; you didn't ask any questions which would allow any discussion to proceed other than for people to say "nice story" or, something that i agree with:

I don't believe you.

and this elizsia is because you simply do not provide any reasons for a person to consider.

anakin has no father; he was conceived by the "will of the force."

There is no call to be rude about it.

 

Just tell me what the multiplicative inverse of the zero element is in the field of real numbers please.

 

That is what is 1/0 ?

quote from wiki:

Finally, a field is a commutative ring in which one can divide by any nonzero element: an example is the field of real numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics)