Wso

My apologies, I chose 25 and 7 at random just to demonstrate the first part of the method. In the case of "f(25, 7) = 3", I'm not proving any number to be prime, I am nearly stating the result of the method previously described. In order to test for primality, comparisons must be made. If f(x, k) > f(y, k) where k is the first 100 or so primes (though any numbers can b used as k, there is a noticeable increase in accuracy when using primes over composite numbers) then x is more likely to be prime than y is. To answer your question about false positives, I wrote a method which computes the average result of f(x, [first 100 primes]) for every number from 1 to 1,000,000. Then if the result for any individual number is greater than or equal to 1.09 (1.09 is just the constant which seemed to work best, it could just as well be any number) * the average, it is considered to most likely be prime. This is because a number x who has a higher than average f(x, y) is more likely to be prime then a number with a smaller f(x, y). The results yielded 2745 possible primes, of which 361 were correct. This isn't truly the best way to use this method however, its really meant for taking a large list of large numbers and telling you which ones to test first for primality. Hopefully this clears it up, if not, I can write out some pseudo code so you can get a better feel for the algorithm.

I thought of a probabilistic primality test a while back and have looked online trying to find if this method has been used or described anywhere before, but so far haven't seen it anywhere. The basic idea is as follows: Define f(x, y) as the number of times “temp = y”, “y = x modulo y” and “x = temp” can be preformed before y is equal to 1 For example, f(25, 7) = 3 because 25 modulo 7 = 4 step 1 7 modulo 4 = 3 step 2 4 modulo 3 = 1 step 3 In general, using prime numbers as either x or y will result in a higher answer when compared to non prime numbers. This method isn’t exact by any means, and can only tell you which numbers are more likely to be prime, not which numbers are certainly prime. This method can be very useful in running through a very large list of potential primes and ranking them in terms of which ones deserve to be checked first for primality. It should also be noted that any two numbers of a close ratio to phi (1.618…) will also result in a larger than average result, for example 10 and 16, 100 and 162. In order to determine if a number k is more likely to be prime then another number t, compute the sum of f(k, x) where x is 2…n, where n is any number, the higher the number the more time the process will take but the more accurate the method will be, generally using anything around 1000 will yield decent results. If f(k, x) > f(t, x) for x in 2…1000, k is more likely to be prime than t. So my question is how useful could this method be? What is the efficiency of this algorithm? Is it O(1) because the largest order operation preformed is modulos? Has this been used before at all?

Great question. Something to consider is how one would simulate the entire universe, using what I'm assuming amounts to less then all the energy in the universe. You must use less then the total energy, because you and any other people relying on this machine would surely be made of energy. Thus the following question arrises: can X particles predict X + Y other particles (where Y is any integer above 0)? If not, the machine is impossible. However a close approximation may be made which could drastically cut down on the required energy to make such a machine.

Even if we assume for a moment that it is possible to have something that has no energy of any kind, how would you reach this state? Energy flows from high to low so reaching absolute zero would (please correct me if I'm wrong here) require something below absolute zero, or in other words, something that has a negative amount of energy. You can't get negative energy so this means that reaching that 0 energy level is not possible. Good question. I hope that this helps you and your friend.

Assuming that time is an absolute, fixed dimension, that doesn't mean we have to move through it at the same speed. The faster that we move through space the slower we move in time in relation to how fast we were previously moving through time. How would this idea of time being a fixed dimension account for photons, which theoretically experiance all moments of their existences instantaneously? In this idea of time having frames, photons would experiance seeing every single frame at once. Also humans don't need to have a time frame to experiance time. Human brains can only process information at a fixed rate, which is much slower then the speed of light and certainly not instantaneous. All objects exist in every time frame, just in different forms. The human brain is no exception to this. This means that the human brain experiences time just as the rate at which information is processed and time is flowing due to speed. To date, no way has need discovered to directly move from one point in time to another. This means that even if someone were to dramatically dialate their time frame it would still exist in the moment that the casual observer barley moving would still be able to see their faster moving friend. This, in my opinion, disproves your initial hypothesis, however I could have been wrong here so correct me if I was incorrect about anything.

At the risk of straying too far into philosophy, what do you define as real? I suppose that it could be argued that nothing is "real". Also, the job of scientists is not to find one "truth" and stick with it, but to try their hardest to disprove every theory possible in order to get rid of all incorrect theories. As strange said, I don't understand what unresolved issues you are referring to, please clerify that. I hope that this post helped, if something didn't make sence let me know so I can correct it. Excellent topic by the way.

I am confused about how some creatures can be clear, or at least mostly clear. One example is the clear squid (more commonly called the glass squid). How can their organs be clear, their stomachs must produce acid which I assume has some coloring. Surely their blood must not be clear, or is it? And most puzzling to me, how can they produce black inc when they appear clear? I thought that maybe they combined two clear chemicals to produce one black chemical but I wasn't quite sure. Perhapse this just stems from my misunderstanding of how squid work. Thank you in advance for all replies and your assistance to help me further understand this topic.

Well that depends on your definition I guess. If you mean reversing gravity, then your right, gravity is just (as we currently understand it) attractive. There are other means to defy gravity though, but when I jump I don't confused it anti gravity. Counteracting gravity, setting up a system where the effects of gravity are counteracted compleatly by some other force, could be called anti gravity.

Unless I'm mistaken compression waves among atoms are just the atoms getting very close, but not touching. So if the electrons in the atoms are repealing eachother, then by the time you compress something to the point of plasma, where unless I'm mistaken all the electrons are on the outside of the plasma body, then how could compression waves travel? Would the neucleus of each atom repel away from eachother? If this isn't how compression waves travel (with electrons repealing eachother and thus their atoms apart from eachother in a wave) then please correct me.

I'll try to further help out our idea of an atom. The electrons, as all particles, can be waves. As particles however they are almost entirely perfectly spherical. The electrons are quite far from the nucleus compared to their size...most of the time. Due to the uncertainty of where the electrons are, they generally stay near their orbitals, but sometimes are actually inside the nucleus (I might be wrong here but this isn't this called quantum tunneling?). The protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, which are made up of strings, which, as far as we know now, are the smallest anything can be divided into. The distance between electrons is difficult to say because they are not fixed to one place at any one time. There is lots of "empty" space in between the various particles making up atoms. I say "empty" in quotes because empty space is teeming with virtual particles. I don't know the size of these virtual particles so maybe someone else will correct me here if I'm wrong, but these virtual particles make it impossible to say that there is truly empty space. If I was mistaken on anything here please correct me, hope this reply helped.

Thanks for the replies so far, they were very helpful. So is there a point of maximum compression? Or does the amount of energy required to further compress anything increase exponentially?

Gravity waves couldn't necessarily be used to make anti gravity. You could have two sources of gravity pulling in opposite directions, as schneibster said earlier, but this isn't really antigravity. You could try to make an interference pattern, as ydoaPs suggested, but this would only be possible if you had something that could block out some parts of the gravitational waves, and I suppose if you had a gravity blocking wall, then cutting holes in it to try and make anti gravity interference patterns would seem a bit odd. The only way I can think of to produce anti gravity is to warp space time and utilize the fact that gravity doesn't travel faster then light to make temporary spots of increased gravity forming interference patterns, these interference patterns might help a little but again, if you can warp space like this, do you really need anti gravity when you can just warp it to the point where it's almost gone? If I worded something bad or said something wrong please mention it.

Can water be compressed? I have heard multiple conflicting views on this. Assuming that you could compress water, could you compress it to a point where any further compression would not be possible? If so then could you make a tube, full of water, and push the water from one end and have the force traverse the length of the tube instantaneously? Compression waves can't happen in water, unless I'm mistaken. I'm more then a bit confused on this and wasn't entirely sure where to post this. I hope posting this here is alright, as it has to do with faster then light data sending and the physics of water.

I'm not sure if this will help, as other users have already said a lot about this topic that was very helpful. That being said, I think I can help answering the "what is pure matter?" question. Pure matter is not possible if you consider string theory. If all atoms are made if protons, neutrons, and electrons, and protons and neutrons are made of quarks which are made of strings, which are one dimensional, then all compression of empty space in the third dimension would prove to be pointless. It would take an infinite amount of one dimensional objects to make up any non-zero space in the third dimension. So therefore, all compressed mass must be due to the size of electrons. Compression of electrons would prove to be a very futile effort because their charges would repel each other. So the electromagnetic force would overcome gravity as the distance between them gets smaller and smaller. Gravity would get stronger, but electromagnetism would get much, much stronger. Though I suppose if you consider all matter to be standing waves then they can "interfere" with each other, though I wouldn't consider this compression. Hopefully this helps, if not, I can try to clarify more. Also, if something I said was wrong, please point it out.

Thanks, this was very helpful and informative. Id love to have a discussion, I don't know much about these errors/attacks but I'll give it a try anyway. What I was wondering is how these types of attacks can be detected. I understand you may block certain strings that can be mistaken as code by another machine using a different launage, but how can you tell, say, what IP adress sent out that specific request. And if the user/hacker were clever enough could they send a string to the server that would mask their IP? Or are some commands too powerful for any system to allow outside strings to influence. If this reply didn't make any sence at all then sorry, like I said I'm still pretty new to this.

Not sure if someone made this already but anyone know any cool JavaScript injections? Thought it would be cool to have a place to share some good ones. Personally I like: Javascript:document.body.contentEditable=%22true%22;document.designMode=%22on%22;void0 It lets you locally edit the we page.

To start off I don't know if this is already a forum or if this is in the wrong place. If it is then please move, delete or close it. That being said, I was thinking about the basic definitions by which we define life. It has to reproduce, evolve, be made of cells, produce waste and use reasources (I may be missing a few so correct me here if needed). Computer programs can be made to randomly mutate their code, they use processing power from other host computers, reproduce, have a code which is somewhat similar to DNA (DNA has 2 combinations of 4 base pairs, binary has 2 possible states per unit of information so the two are quite similar). My question is, at what point does a simple code fit the definitions of life in the same sence that viruses do?

Well the way that I understand it, time is seperate from space, seperate but still there is a relation. The way you have described gravity is not how it really works. What happens is that with more more speed you go through less time. If your assumption as to the slowing of particles due to heavier gravity were true, we would see that particles would all move less when near heavier planets then the temperature of these objects would be affected as well. Heat is basically just movement of molecules based on their energy, so if they moved less they would be cooling down, in reality they do not cool down when near high mass objects, so your assumption must be false. Also, if you somehow stopped all particles from moving, time would continue to exist. Time is compleatly relative, meaning that depending on your point of view more or less time passes relative to others. Just because everyone covers their eyes does not stop light from existing. Time continues to exist, no matter what frame of view we look at it in.

True, but to be fair we are not discussing the existence of god or gods, just the point of which humans would have absolute power. It is relivant to the discussion so long as it stays on the topic of being able to change physics. We are just using the power of the gods to describe this absolute power, like a metaphor.

There are two points where humans would become equivalent to gods. The first one is being able to change the universe any way we want, the second is knowing everything about it. Which one did you mean?

Energy is anything that can hold, store, or otherwise represent any type of information. Energy is matter, light, electricity, and all other types of electromagnetic wave functions. Elizsia said something very similar, of not exactly this. To answer elizsias questions, there doesn't have to be any first wave. There is no reason all waves have to have a begging point from which they all stem from. Antimatter is the exception to this definition of energy however, because although it is energy, it is technically a bit different from regular matter and energy. This reply was quite difficult for me to word so correct me if I was wrong at all, or if I worded something in a bad way.

Humans have no more free will then a rock. Allow me to attempt to prove this, please feel free to disagree or call me out on anything wrong in this reply. 1. Free will is making decisions without any kind of fate or destiny 2. No type of energy can make decisions, it acts based on a set of principles (a series of if thens) 3. Humans are made up entirely of atoms and various forms of energy. Atoms are energy so humans are made up entirely of energy 4. Humans can not make decisions because the energy that makes us up can not make decisions Hopefully this makes sense to everyone here, again, if you find any flaws in this logic please let me know.

Technically moving at all should be impossible using that logic, because you can not traverse an infinite amount of small subdivided distances. Of corse if you can not move then the whole argument is invalid anyway, if you can never move 1 foot how would you get halfway to 20 feet? When using infinities, it's best just to stop right there, infinity has a pot of strange properties. Instead of using infinity to describe something, try to substitute it with a variable (this May or may not help in all, if any cases). The idea that we can never move is invalidated by the fact that as I type this, I am moving. You can use infinity and make a lot of logical fallacies, all of them invalid due simply to the use of infinity.

Thank you for correcting me, I realize that my post didn't make much sense. What I meant was I would try to prove it right. The process of proving a theroy right, of corse, is basically try to prove it wrong and if that doesn't work, it might be correct.

Time is simply the name for which humans have given to the chain of events that we find ourselves stuck in. It is possible to move differently in this "timeline" via speed. Time dilation ensures that more speed means less time experienced. This is why at C (the speed of light) no time would be experienced. If you were moving at C, I suppose time would seem to be an allusion, because all events would happen at once for you. You can not move at C though, unless you had infinite energy, which you can't have. So to answer your question of "is time simply an allusion?" The answer is it depends on your perspective. Due to the fact that a photon would experience millions of years as soon as we first see it, I suppose time does seem like an allusion. Time does exist though, it can be bent and warped but it does exist, because of this we must conclude that it is not an allusion, it is part of reality, just a very odd part of reality. I hope this answers your question.