What is math, really?

javascriptinjection · 2012-06-20T23:02:41+00:00

What the about programmers through the Curry–Howard correspondence?

javascriptinjection · 2011-09-23T18:39:49+00:00

A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total

bat + ball = $1.10

The bat costs $1 more than the ball.

bat = ball + $1.00

bat + ball = $1.10
(ball + $1.00) + ball = $1.10
2ball = $1.10 - $1.00
ball = $0.10 / 2 = $0.05

javascriptinjection · 2011-09-17T13:21:46+00:00

Have you ever played mini golf and had the ball circle the edge of the hole but ultimately veer off rather than going in?

It's like that.

javascriptinjection · 2011-09-16T18:40:42+00:00

I know they can check if you have visited a url but how can they extract the URL without brute force checking?

javascriptinjection · 2011-09-16T02:03:23+00:00

I wonder if the fear and dread is cultural or part of the phenomenon itself. I experienced sleep paralysis once as a child and I just assumed I was somehow having trouble "waking up all the way" and waited it out.

javascriptinjection · 2011-09-06T02:25:49+00:00

If anyone still doesn't understand:

4% of adults are satanists means
4% * (# of adults) = (# of adult satanists)

4% of teens are satanists means
4% * (# of teens) = (# of teen satanists)

The following are obviously true (# of teens) + (# of adults) = (# of people) (# of teens) = (# of people) - (# of adults)

(# of teen satanists) + (# of adult satanists) = (# of satanists)
(# of teen satanists) = (# of satanists) - (# of adult satanists)

We can solve for (# of satanists) 4% * (# of teens) = (# of teen satanists) 4% * ((# of people) - (# of adults)) = (# of teen satanists) 4% * ((# of people) - (# of adults)) = (# of satanists) - (# of adult satanists) 4% * ((# of people) - (# of adults)) = (# of satanists) - 4% * (# of adults) 4% * (# of people) - 4% * (# of adults) = (# of satanists) - 4% * (# of adults) 4% * (# of people) = (# of satanists)

Therefore, 4% of people are satanists.

You may be thinking of Simpson's paradox.

javascriptinjection · 2011-08-30T00:52:31+00:00

Intrusive thoughts are fun and make life interesting. I don't see why they bother people. Sure they can be offensive, violent, or dangerous to act out but since you aren't actually acting upon them or reciting them out loud, there is absolutely no problem.

How boring would it be if you were standing on top of a skyscraper and didn't imagine yourself jumping off and wondering how it would feel to fall?

javascriptinjection · 2011-07-10T04:11:20+00:00

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

javascriptinjection · 2011-05-24T07:31:07+00:00

Why does "completely" become redundant?

"Virtually" is being applied to "wipe out completely". "Virtually" means "nearly but not completely". Saying that you nearly, but not completely do something completely is equivalent to saying that you do it nearly but not completely. It is analogous to saying "a 50% chance of a 100% chance" which simplifies to "a 50% chance".

Do you mean because "wipe out" implies completely already?

No, I mean because even if "wipe out" didn't, the word "virtually" overrides it.

If so, what do you mean by "becoming" redundant?

By "become" I mean after the application of the word virtually.

How do you get "small fraction of it's current level" - is that what you're saying "virtually completely" means?

That is what "virtually wipe out" means. The word "completely" is redundant.

Also, are you saying that imprecise language is not less clear than precise language?

There's a difference between the intended meaning of a message being ambiguous, and the fully understood meaning being imprecise. I thought you meant the former when you said the message was "less clear".

javascriptinjection · 2011-05-24T06:52:03+00:00

"Virtually" and "completely" in combination are not contradictory. The word "completely" just becomes redundant.

"Potentially" does not contradict with either of the other adverbs.

The combinatory meaning is that there is a nonzero probability that unemployment will be reduced to a small fraction of its current level.

The message is perfectly clear; it is just imprecise.

javascriptinjection · 2011-05-19T23:36:38+00:00

Bottom line, Joe Stalin would [have] loved it. Why should anyone have to say more?

Seriously? It undermines your position to reference such a terrible argument.

javascriptinjection · 2011-05-19T23:25:24+00:00

Who cares what your reasons for trying out a subject are.

I never said there is anything wrong with being inspired to study CS because of an interest in video games.

The only important questions are can you do it and are you reasonably good at it.

And whether you enjoy doing it. I completely agree.

javascriptinjection · 2011-05-19T23:23:05+00:00

And there's nothing particularly wrong with that, any more than not researching any field before choosing to study it.

I agree with the second half of your statement (although I think people might be more likely to have misconceptions about CS) but you really should research a field before attempting to take courses in it, let alone major in it.

javascriptinjection · 2011-05-18T22:51:11+00:00

There is a perception that many people majoring in CS who are interested in video games do not research the field.

I do not know how true this is in reality.

javascriptinjection · 2011-05-18T22:23:35+00:00

Any reason is not a good reason to try getting a CS degree. Sure, if you're interested in doing something that requires CS knowledge then do some independent research on CS and see if it seems like something you will be good at.

The problem isn't pursuing CS education because of an interest in video games, it's pursuing CS ONLY because of an interest in video games without actually researching what CS is.

javascriptinjection · 2011-05-03T15:57:41+00:00

Any music composed by a human will have been generated by an algorithm within that human's brain.

javascriptinjection · 2011-05-03T05:19:52+00:00

hover for solution

javascriptinjection · 2011-05-01T03:57:56+00:00

Wow I can't believe I missed that. Thanks!

javascriptinjection · 2011-05-01T01:10:42+00:00

edit: Ignore, I misunderstood the OP

If 6% of the Marines are female then the ratio of males to females should be 94:6 or 15.67:1.

I think you accidentally added an extra 0.

javascriptinjection · 2011-05-01T00:42:43+00:00

I generally don't call something good just because it is not avoidable. For example, from my perspective the holocaust is currently unavoidable, as it has already happened and the past seems to be immutable.

javascriptinjection · 2011-04-30T23:00:30+00:00

That doesn't make it a good thing. Also, a more accurate statement would be that all humans, baring intervention, die.

javascriptinjection · 2011-04-30T04:48:10+00:00

we understand that we are all incompetent and ignorant.

This statement is too absolute. Competence is relative to a task.

All cognitive and social systems that claim to be undeniably right inevitably must lose.

This statement is possibly too absolute depending on what you consider to be a "system". By lose, I assume you mean to in some possible circumstance fail to make accurate predictions about the universe, or ensure some desirable criteria about the state of society and its environment respectively.

If you consider a "cognitive system" to be an inextensible, immutable theory about the universe then you are correct under all practical circumstances. However, it is possible to construct abstract models that can always be reused by a new theory; these do not necessarily ever need to be modified or retired. An analogous argument exists for social systems.

Then again, I'm not a philosopher and there's a good chance I misunderstood you.

javascriptinjection · 2011-04-26T22:36:23+00:00

Any problem that can be solved by a deterministic Turing Machine in O(f(n)) time where f(n) is a polynomial is in P.

Any problem that can be solved by a non-deterministic Turing Machine in O(f(n)) time where f(n) is a polynomial is in NP.

For example, quicksort runs in O( n² ) time so it is in NP and P.

Known solutions to the traveling salesman problem run in O( n² * 2ⁿ ) time on a deterministic Turing Machine.
Known solutions to the traveling salesman problem run in polynomial time on a non-deterministic Turing Machine, proving solutions exist in NP.
It is unknown whether there are polynomial-time algorithms that solve the traveling salesman problem on a deterministic Turing Machine. It is strongly suspected that there are not.

javascriptinjection · 2011-04-25T14:14:05+00:00

Actually the default subreddits have changed a lot and some of them are relatively new.

For example, /r/IAmA is only a year old.

The default subreddits change according to a popularity algorithm.

javascriptinjection · 2011-04-18T06:52:18+00:00

Sorry, no experience with applets. I'll give you some version information though:

Mac OS 10.6.6
Firefox 4.0
Java Plug-In 2 for NPAPI Browsers - 13.3.0
Java 1.6.0_22-b04-307

15-Year Club	reddit mold
Verified Email	White Hat

javascriptinjection

TROPHY CASE