Random Thoughts Part 5: Time to Split Again

[BornCane]

who is everyone's favorite scientist of all time ( can be any natural science (biology, chemistry, physics etc.) or any formal science like (mathematics, computer science)

and why?

 

[wolram]

This is Translator vs my knowledge in English. What translator says:

What I actually meant:

Which one do you guys think wins?

EDIT: This was a test. I didn't feed any birds. And Silicon Waffle is because it was the first name that came to mind when testing.

The second is more correct, you must have Silicon Waffle on your mind

 

[Psinter]

The second is more correct, you must have Silicon Waffle on your mind

Haha, take that, Translator.

Nah, Silicon Waffle is on the database... On the site database.

 

[JorisL]

Oh boy, if my back-of-the-envelope calculations pan out I'm in for a lot more work than anticipated (like exponential).
And this while I was approaching threshold to write a sufficient thesis with 2 months left to expand :-(

Note to self; never assume significant simplifications are actually true regardless of what's said in the paper.

 

[WWGD]

John Von Neumann was the most brilliant mind of the 20th century and one of the greatest geniuses of all time, as a mathematician he ranks up there with Grothendieck and Hilbert for the 20th century

he has to be considered the last true polymath before the age of specialization

Maybe to be more accurate he is one for which the natural intelligence and talent came together with other circumstances in the right way to allow him to develop his talents. To cite an extreme illustration, had he been born, e.g., in Africa at that time, it is not certain he would have accomplished any thing at all. Talent and genius, intelligence are definitely necessary, but not sufficient.

 

[JorisL]

Oh boy, if my back-of-the-envelope calculations pan out I'm in for a lot more work than anticipated (like exponential).
And this while I was approaching threshold to write a sufficient thesis with 2 months left to expand :-(

Note to self; never assume significant simplifications are actually true regardless of what's said in the paper.

It is as I expected, a lot of work up ahead. Although I found some arguments to get rid of the exponential increase.
It'll probably only double or so.

 

[BornCane]

Maybe to be more accurate he is one for which the natural intelligence and talent came together with other circumstances in the right way to allow him to develop his talents. To cite an extreme illustration, had he been born, e.g., in Africa at that time, it is not certain he would have accomplished any thing at all. Talent and genius, intelligence are definitely necessary, but not sufficient.

to be fair...

I don't really find that argument interesting

cause that could literally apply to anybody that has made intellectual discoveries or contributions

for example

"Einstein wasn't that intelligent, what about the hypothetical poor boy in Russia who never had that chance"

"Feynman he wasn't that smart, what about this girl from Africa etc. etc."

I don't dispute that environment plays a role, its just that argument too me, seems a cop out way to disregard anybody's intellectual achievements by coming up with some hypothetical about some person who is just as "good" out there

That's just the way i see these arguments

 

[WWGD]

to be fair...

I don't really find that argument interesting

cause that could literally apply to anybody that has made intellectual discoveries or contributions

for example

"Einstein wasn't that intelligent, what about the hypothetical poor boy in Russia who never had that chance"

"Feynman he wasn't that smart, what about this girl from Africa etc. etc."

I don't dispute that environment plays a role, its just that argument too me, seems a cop out way to disregard anybody's intellectual achievements by coming up with some hypothetical about some person who is just as "good" out there

That's just the way i see these arguments

I never disregarded neither his accomplishments nor his talents. I said talent and intelligence as _necessary_ , meaning I believe he did have the talent and intelligence. EDIT I only pointed out that many things (including intelligence) need to come together just the right way.

 

[Enigman]

E̲̤̥̳̜͓̝͖͖̰̙̳̎͗̎̾ͨṅ͓̹͕̫̭͍͖̲͚̖̦̣̥͓ͧ̽́ͩ̈́t̙͕͍̦̙̤̻̼̳͓̼̬͚͙̭̝̲̯̄̄ͫ̏̓́͗̈́͒ͨ͒ͯ̚ṟ̻̥̳̟̞̪̜͕ͧ͋̑͒̇̎͊̚ö͔̣̥͔̰̰̯̼͖̙͙̘̤́̐ͤ̂͋̒̐͗͐̑̅͂ͨ͗ͅp̼̠̤̜̅̏̎ͬ̈̍̾̓͆͂̒̓̚y̫͎̺̣̱͕̞͍͉͓̠̹̺̼͔̾ͫͪ̅̈́ͨ̊̓ͬ̔́ͨ͌ͅ ̖̠͇̩͚̙͊ͯ͊ͦ̃̒̒̽̽ͦͬͯͫ͆H͎̝̦̦͈͈̙͈̼̺͔͕̮̤̰̲̰̟̀ͭ̐̈́̃̈́ͅa̻͉̱͈̼͇͖ͩ̇͂ͨͨ̑ͭp̤̱̙̘͕̳̺̣̟̘͖̟̹̘̊ͫ͑͗ͫͪ͊ͦͧ̃̎̇́ͯ̚ͅͅp͈̺͔̟̪̺̝͔̏͑ͤ̄̅̒̌ë͈̭̗̼̠̠́̽ͤͫͣͮͫ̉͊ͥn̰̫͖̯̲̲̬̞̱̰͎ͩ̈̓ͯ̐̌̾ͫ̍̓ͩ͋̂̂̉̑́ͣs̺̟̖̰̘͎̙̭̯̫̞̭̼͙̱̪͙̼̏͌̈́ͫ̊́ͣ̓͋̐̆.̗͉̜̠̘̦̊̽̐ͣ

 

[WWGD]

I don't know why so many people mention 3/14 as Pi day but not 3/16 as $\sqrt(10)$ day , given that 3.16 is a better approximation
to $\sqrt(10)$ than 3.14 is of $\pi$, meaning $\pi -3.14 > \sqrt(10) -3.16$.

 

[collinsmark]

I don't know why so many people mention 3/14 as Pi day but not 3/16 as $\sqrt(10)$ day , given that 3.16 is a better approximation
to $\sqrt(10)$ than 3.14 is of $\pi$, meaning $\pi -3.14 > \sqrt(10) -3.16$.

Transcendental heresy! (get the pitchforks)

 

[Pepper Mint]

E̲̤̥̳̜͓̝͖͖̰̙̳̎͗̎̾ͨṅ͓̹͕̫̭͍͖̲͚̖̦̣̥͓ͧ̽́ͩ̈́t̙͕͍̦̙̤̻̼̳͓̼̬͚͙̭̝̲̯̄̄ͫ̏̓́͗̈́͒ͨ͒ͯ̚ṟ̻̥̳̟̞̪̜͕ͧ͋̑͒̇̎͊̚ö͔̣̥͔̰̰̯̼͖̙͙̘̤́̐ͤ̂͋̒̐͗͐̑̅͂ͨ͗ͅp̼̠̤̜̅̏̎ͬ̈̍̾̓͆͂̒̓̚y̫͎̺̣̱͕̞͍͉͓̠̹̺̼͔̾ͫͪ̅̈́ͨ̊̓ͬ̔́ͨ͌ͅ ̖̠͇̩͚̙͊ͯ͊ͦ̃̒̒̽̽ͦͬͯͫ͆H͎̝̦̦͈͈̙͈̼̺͔͕̮̤̰̲̰̟̀ͭ̐̈́̃̈́ͅa̻͉̱͈̼͇͖ͩ̇͂ͨͨ̑ͭp̤̱̙̘͕̳̺̣̟̘͖̟̹̘̊ͫ͑͗ͫͪ͊ͦͧ̃̎̇́ͯ̚ͅͅp͈̺͔̟̪̺̝͔̏͑ͤ̄̅̒̌ë͈̭̗̼̠̠́̽ͤͫͣͮͫ̉͊ͥn̰̫͖̯̲̲̬̞̱̰͎ͩ̈̓ͯ̐̌̾ͫ̍̓ͩ͋̂̂̉̑́ͣs̺̟̖̰̘͎̙̭̯̫̞̭̼͙̱̪͙̼̏͌̈́ͫ̊́ͣ̓͋̐̆.̗͉̜̠̘̦̊̽̐ͣ

How could you make that ?

 

[BornCane]

I never disregarded neither his accomplishments nor his talents. I said talent and intelligence as _necessary_ , meaning I believe he did have the talent and intelligence. EDIT I only pointed out that many things (including intelligence) need to come together just the right way.

your right i misread your post
my apologies

 

[WWGD]

your right i misread your post
my apologies

No problem, I have misread plenty of posts myself.

 

[WWGD]

Transcendental heresy! (get the pitchforks)

But this is just a very basic approximation, how do transcendentals enter the picture?

 

[collinsmark]

But this is just a very basic approximation, how do transcendentals enter the picture?

\pi is a transcendental number (i.e., it is not algebraic). \sqrt{10} on the other hand is algebraic (thus not transcendental).

[Edit: besides, Pi day is one of my favorite days of the year.]

 

[BornCane]

\pi is a transcendental number (i.e., it is not algebraic). \sqrt{10} on the other hand is algebraic (thus not transcendental).

[Edit: besides, Pi day is one of my favorite days of the year.]

i always wondered

where does the word "Pi" come from?

 

[WWGD]

\pi is a transcendental number (i.e., it is not algebraic). \sqrt{10} on the other hand is algebraic (thus not transcendental).

[Edit: besides, Pi day is one of my favorite days of the year.]

True, but this is kind of heavy-handed for a pop-culture thing. But we can talk more about it on February 7 , 2018 ;).

 

[WWGD]

i always wondered

where does the word "Pi" come from?

I think it is a letter from the Greek alphabet.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I lost 8 pounds in the last month. The secret is a combination of eating less and switching some of what you do eat to less fattening food. But I guess that's common knowledge. Not much of a secret. And if it was, it isn't any more.

 

[WWGD]

I lost 8 pounds in the last month. The secret is a combination of eating less and switching some of what you do eat to less fattening food. But I guess that's common knowledge. Not much of a secret. And if it was, it isn't any more.

I think it is much easier to lose weight by cutting down on food alone, i.e., without increasing exercise level than to lose weight by increasing exercise level without changing one's diet. Of course, it would be better to do both.

 

[1oldman2]

I think it is much easier to lose weight by cutting down on food alone, i.e., without increasing exercise level than to lose weight by increasing exercise level without changing one's diet. Of course, it would be better to do both.

That means no ice cream on your Pi, of course.

 

[WWGD]

That means no ice cream on your Pi, of course.

Certainly not until I lose the $\sqrt(10)^2=10$ pounds I need to lose.

 

[1oldman2]

Ironically my math skills are on par with my cats... who happens to be named Pi,(true story)

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think it is much easier to lose weight by cutting down on food alone, i.e., without increasing exercise level than to lose weight by increasing exercise level without changing one's diet. Of course, it would be better to do both.

I guess it depends on what aspect of self-discipline you are talking about. It's certainly less physical effort ("easier") to just cut down on food. However, for some people it's "easier" to add physical effort than it is to discipline themselves to cut down on food. If we can stretch "easier" to mean "faster," then both is the easiest of all.

 

[Sophia]

I lost 8 pounds in the last month. The secret is a combination of eating less and switching some of what you do eat to less fattening food. But I guess that's common knowledge. Not much of a secret. And if it was, it isn't any more.

congratulations!

 

[zoobyshoe]

congratulations!

Thanks!

 

[WWGD]

I guess it depends on what aspect of self-discipline you are talking about. It's certainly less physical effort ("easier") to just cut down on food. However, for some people it's "easier" to add physical effort than it is to discipline themselves to cut down on food. If we can stretch "easier" to mean "faster," then both is the easiest of all.

Well yes, you're right I didn't want to make an overly technical statement, but more of a rule of thumb (which may not hold by the standards of a rule of thumb) that , assuming one could have equal efforts in both areas: cutting down on food and increasing exercising, that cutting down would be more effective. Not much of a Random thought, though.

 

[zoobyshoe]

(which may not hold by the standards of a rule of thumb)

Hmm..yes. Whose thumb was used as the thumb by which the standard 'rule of thumb' rules?

 

[WWGD]

Hmm..yes. Whose thumb was used as the thumb by which the standard 'rule of thumb' rules?

Just my own experience and things I have heard. When I have gone even a week having a light dinner, I have lost weight. But when I have exercised daily without cutting down on food ( I usually do so every other day) , I have not lost any weight. I heard similar comments by trainers on science shows, but nothing rigorous, data-based.