Leaderboard

Are you familiar with us/them thinking... ingroup and outgroup behaviors? If not, then think about why you just lashed out here in this thread against me and zapatos. What prompted YOU to do that? That behavior from you is remarkably similar to what you’re asking about in the OP. If you don’t understand, then ask questions. There are lots of incredible teachers here who enjoy helping. But if you continue being a tribal monkey who merely wants to throw feces, well then... no thanks.

Why do we park on driveways but drive on parkways? Why are goods moved by cars called shipments but goods moved on ships are called cargo?

That seems to be a reasonable expectation. And while these cars may not have definitively been proved safer than human driven vehicles, I also don't see where they have definitively been proven less safe than human driven vehicles, which is what it seemed you were implying. Regulations for AI cars may be quite different than those for human driven cars, just as commercial trucks and taxis have different regulations. The car itself may not have to be 'safer', or even as safe, as long as the overall environment meets safety expectations.

Some technology relies on other technology, and they often aren't in sync. The steam engine was discovered long before we had practical mechanics to take advantage of the power produced. Much of what the OP is talking about is what happens when a species has to spend all it's time gathering food. Coming to grips with what to do with all the free time agriculture gave us took some time. Better ways of making everything were discovered once only a fraction of the population was needed to procure sustenance. More than all that, making the shift from tribal nomadism to concentrated population centers was obviously a hard sell for many at the time. The best and the worst of humans is amplified as population density increases, and we still see distrust and division today. Also, remember that scientific methodology won't be a thing for several millennia. When questions arose in early human civilizations about specific phenomena, answers were readily available. It was the gods, obviously. When people are given answers, they stop asking the question. It wasn't until we started treating science as theory that we stopped looking for answers and started looking for the best supported explanations. From there, our knowledge had firm footing to build upon, and thus grew so quickly in the last several centuries. Human knowledge is a lot like a roasting marshmallow; ignorance keeps us from absorbing knowledge like a white marshmallow resists radiation, until finally enough is absorbed to change the color, which allows a lot more to be absorbed, which changes the color even faster. Every generation of humans knows more, and knowing things leads to knowing more things. Nowadays, we absorb more facts in a day than some folks back then did in their entire lifetimes.

Interesting question, I had to think for a while before answering. @Strange and @studiot already covered two important aspects, I'll try to add a few comments from my background in the area. In my more formal studies of computer science the definitions used by scientists were more formal and close related to Discrete Mathematics. A scalar was typically discussed an array of length one, or a 1x1 matrix. But when moving over to for instance software engineering the terms and definitions was/is affected by the sometimes less formal approach in programming environments or languages under consideration. Sometimes a "String" would mean an immutable sequence of a characters, referenced by some pointer. The fact that the pointer referenced one single value made it a scalar. This was also influenced by the fact that the String itself was immutable. (Java* and Python are two languages I think of). In other environments the term "String" was an array of length n (or a 1 X n matrix) containing characters. In that case a string of characters was not matching the definitions of a scalar. So I agree, depending on context I could select any of Yes, No, Both, Neither. But In python and related languages and situations, I think I would vote for String=Scalar if I had to choose one without knowing more about the context. That choice would be based more on experience and work rather than formal definitions from computer science / Discrete Mathematics. *)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable_object#Java

Thank you for your answer. Note that all semi linear and quasi linear equations are actually non linear but they can often be reduced to a set of coupled or simultaneous linear ones. You first equation is non linear because u is the dependent variable x, t are the independent variables so we only look at u and its derivatives. The first term is linear because the first derivative (of u) is not multiplied by another function of u or its derivatives. The second term is linear because the second derivative (of u) is not multiplied by another function of u or its derivatives. But the third term is non linear because it contains u2 . Have you identified the dependent and independent variables in the other equations and the non linear parts ?

! Moderator Note I'm so unimpressed with your efforts to discuss this subject civilly that I'm going to give you a three day vacation, and hopefully you'll reread some of the helpful posts trying to update your knowledge of electricity. Please lose the attitude, stop trolling for reactions, and realize that however well you THINK you're explaining yourself, it's failing categorically. A discussion is about persuading people with your arguments, and so far you're just a monkey throwing shit. Come back better. I'm going to ask everybody else to leave this thread alone while westom is suspended. Maybe the new year will bring new insights.

I think what is skewing your eye is that the nature of exponential growth is not intuitive: over a human life span we only see a small interval of the curve . Over geological times though, the nature of that curve is apparent. It started shallow, but now we're seeing just how steep it is: societies and landscapes changing within single lifetimes. It's an old story.

The Dirac sea was originally developed when there were only two known particles. The electron and the proton. The negative energy states which make up the sea were filled with the positive energy states. However the theory didn't consider spin zero particles ie bosons which you can have any number of bosons of the same state in the same space. This in itself meant there is no limit of bosons that could fill a hole. Some bosons such as the photon are it's own antiparticle as it is charge neutral. It was the problem of bosons and advent of QFT that made the Dirac sea or hole theory problematic and essentially became useless. In essence you could have an infinite number of bosons in every hole.

I’m not challenging that it happens, nor the high frequency with which it does. I’m challenging your assertion that it’s genetic, instinctual, or whatever other similar label you’re using. The fact that not everyone does this, and even you acknowledge many people don’t, suggests that maybe you’re making a fundamental attribution error or hasty generalization.

With all due respect, this is scienceforums, not yourgutinstinctforums.

OK I'll play too... Why are attached dwellings called APARTments ? Why are the places where you sit at a sports game called the STANDs ?

Why can you be superstitious but not a little bit stitious?

No. That is not a valid representation of what I shared with you. A valid reference frame comes from a point of rest relative to other reference frames. Photons are never at rest relative to any reference frame. You should study more to find out. I’m not the one who created the labels so you’re really tilting at wind mills here.

Hi, Liz, What does your textbook say ? I ask this because there are several different ways to approach this and I don't want to confuse you with a different one than you are used to. does your textbook use x2Uxx - yUxy = U Which is linear and x2Uxx - yUxy = U2 Which is non linear or the same two equations written like this [math]{x^2}\frac{{{\partial ^2}U}}{{\partial {x^2}}} - y\frac{{{\partial ^2}U}}{{\partial x\partial y}} = U[/math] and [math]{x^2}\frac{{{\partial ^2}U}}{{\partial {x^2}}} - y\frac{{{\partial ^2}U}}{{\partial x\partial y}} = {U^2}[/math] Or possibly even like this. This is known as operator notation. Note these are different eqautions from before. [math]L\left[ U \right] = \left[ {\frac{{{\partial ^2}U}}{{\partial {x^2}}} - {c^2}\frac{{{\partial ^2}U}}{{\partial u\partial y}}} \right][/math] which is linear and [math]L\left[ U \right] = \left[ {{{\left( {\frac{{\partial U}}{{\partial x}}} \right)}^2} - {c^2}{{\left( {\frac{{\partial U}}{{\partial y}}} \right)}^2}} \right][/math] Which is non linear It is important to be able to separate PDEs into linear and non linear as a first step.

You literally did not answer my OP question, just now. My OP question was "Why are people predisposed to do X on an instinctual level?" You responded by saying "People do X."

So you aren't aware of any actual scientific studies which utilize the scientific method and are conducted by scientists in science facilities? In that case, thanks but no thanks. With all due respect, this is scienceforums, not yourgutinstinctforums.