Recent content by DarkFalz

Thank you for all the answers so far. I am also a computer scientist, so my reasoning about this problem came from the fact that the two generals problem can be applied to everyday conversations. Regarding everyday conversations I believe it works like this: - if A asks B something like X, B can...

When we are having a conversation, the response/comment from the other person to our last sentence acknowledges that the other person heard our sentence. For instance, if person A and B are having a conversation and it goes like this A - Do you want a beer? B - Sure (at this point A knows B...

Let's consider a simple roulette game, where one may either get red or black. Since the probabiblity P of an event A, P(A) is defined as the relative frequency at which the event occurs, if we get red , say 3 times in a row, it is very likely that the next random pick will be black. My question...

This might be a very vague and unclear question, but let me explain. When an object at rest moves, or moves from point A to point B , we know the object must have had some velocity (1st derivative of position) during that trip. It's also true that the object had to have accelerated to gain that...

But there must still be a limit to how many derivatives we can perceive or take into account in our reasoning/thinking, because we are limited. Do we rely mostly on position, velocity and acceleration and consider a constant jerk to simplify things?

We can perceive position by establishing a reference point We can perceive velocity by noticing a change in position We can perceive acceleration by noticing a change in velocity We can perceive jerk by noticing a change in acceleration Can humans also perceive jounce or any higher order...

Thanks a lot for the answers! It makes sense!

I've recently read in this article http://www.en.uni-muenchen.de/news/newsarchiv/2013/f-m-77-13.html that "In the world of classical mechanics, the state of a physical system and its future evolution is fully determined by the instantaneous locations and velocities of its constituent particles"...

Then tell me something. When you or i look at something and perceive it with a given color, if the color changes just slightly, we won't perceive it. Is this because our eyes cannot precisely measure the color up to the decimal place where it changed (considering the color as a magnitude)? Also...

Then we can fully measure something? All talk until now seemed to point to the opposite.

Let's wrap it up then. A device can't perform infinitely precise measurements because that would require infinite energy, which we do not have. Hence, when two very similar lights arrive to our eyes (or a camera), these are interpreted as the same color because the measuring device has finite...

What if the position of the whole atom itself in the universe represents the state?

How is that possible? Let's consider a device composed of two atoms. These could be any distance D ∈ ℝ apart from one another, even if some of these values represent unstable situations.

But space is continuous, right? So particles can have an infinity of positions, hence the analogy works. Am i correct?

There are as many numbers between 0 and 1 as there are in the whole real number range. Why is it impossible??