uncool

Congratulations on saying in a thousand words what one sentence is enough to describe. =Uncool-

That would be because it is effectively a problem in 4 unknowns: h/c, h/g, h/d, and h/r. =Uncool-

It will take time for the pattern to be destroyed - the interference pattern is a result of the light propagating. If you place your detector right next to the splitter, only after the appropriate interval will the pattern be destroyed. In the meantime, the person would be unable to detect the difference. =Uncool-

What are a, b, p, and q? And why is (C - B) equal to b^n, and (C - A) equal to a^n? =Uncool-

The best way to say what you are saying is that there is no absolute time, nor absolute length, for any object or event. However, there is a rest length for the object, and as it begins to move, its length contracts. =Uncool-

Just fyi guys, coberst is an old, old spammer. Look up this exact topic. I've seen it on at least 3 fora I go to. It's apparently on at least 30 of them, according to google. The idiot rarely returns to his threads - I've only ever seen it 3 times, and with barely any real contributions. Usually he just reposts an old reply when people ask the same questions as others did on other fora, without even trying to do anything new with it. He doesn't discuss anything. =Uncool-

Gasparri: The dimension of a manifold (such as the mobius band) is defined as what Euclidean space it "looks like" locally - that is, if you take a small enough neighborhood of any point on a manifold, it will look like R^n for some n, and n is defined to be the dimension. The mobius band locally looks like 2-space, or a plane - and so is defined to be 2-dimensional.

As a response to the video: He is mixing his frames entirely wrong. In the frame of the ships, yes, it would only take one second to cross the distance between them. However, in the frame of the observer, the light would not be going perpendicular to the velocity of the ship - it would have to "catch up" to the other ship, as he seems to say later in the video. If he stopped mixing his frames, the "superluminal" messaging would clearly not exist. =Uncool-

Z512 Z256*Z2 Z128*Z4 Z128*Z2*Z2 Z64*Z8 Z64*Z4*Z2 Z64*Z2*Z2*Z2 Z32*Z16 Z32*Z8*Z2 Z32*Z4*Z4 Z32*Z4*Z2*Z2 Z32*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2 Z16*Z16*Z2 Z16*Z8*Z4 Z16*Z8*Z2*Z2 Z16*Z4*Z4*Z2 Z16*Z4*Z2*Z2*Z2 Z16*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2 Z8*Z8*Z8 Z8*Z8*Z4*Z2 Z8*Z8*Z2*Z2*Z2 Z8*Z4*Z4*Z4 Z8*Z4*Z4*Z2*Z2 Z8*Z4*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2 Z8*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2 Z4*Z4*Z4*Z4*Z2 Z4*Z4*Z4*Z2*Z2*Z2 Z4*Z4*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2 Z4*Z4*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2 Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2*Z2 Way more than 10 possibilities. The way I suggest: Find the element of largest magnitude, and mod the group by it. Repeat until you have the trivial group. The list of orders should be the group itself. Note: You must use the largest-magnitude element, as otherwise, you could be modding out incorrectly.

Guys: One of the assumptions of relativity is that there are such things as inertial paths. Once you assume that, you can take any inertial path. Then anything moving at the speed of light will be moving at the speed of light relative to any other inertial path. You can also get the speed of light from Maxwell's equations, which state how fast an electromagnetic wave moves through space (hint: it's at a familiar speed...) =Uncool-

I've been trying to find the exact definition of a CQF in many places, but I have not been able to actually find it. Does anyone know the exact definition of a conjugate quadrature filter? =Uncool-

Can't gravity still be used in special relativity, so long as the distortion effects are ignored? That is, you assume that gravity does not affect the speed of light/etc.? =Uncool-

How does special relativity affect a gravitational field? I'd think that because the radius becomes smaller and the masses become bigger, the field is magnified by a factor of gamma^4. Is that right? =Uncool-

I do agree, sarcasm is the last resort of the incompetent. That is why I use sarcasm much more quickly. =Uncool-

Hrm...gravitons interact weakly with other gravitons? Because I'd think that would falsify General Relativity in a way - you would be able to distinguish between acceleration and gravity simply by watching the effect on gravitons, wouldn't you? =Uncool-

Actually, what does happen when you throw a charged particle into a black hole? Doesn't the black hole basically "swallow up" the charge, because the electrical force works through photons? Shouldn't it also do that for gravitons, if they exist? As in, wouldn't this be a proof that gravity is a change in spacetime rather than by particles? =Uncool-

That's not even correct - if you are a quark traveling very close to the photon relative to the star (because nothing can travel with the photon, not even a viewpoint), the other photon would still seem to be traveling at c. This is because your system has different lengths and different time intervals than the original system - as shown by special relativity. This is actually the first thing you find in relativity - the second postulate: anything going at the speed of light in one inertial frame is going at the speed of light in any inertial frame. =Uncool-

Sorry, just in general don't like giving out my e-mail. Think you could at least make your proof somewhat more formal? And to use latex, just use the [ math ] [ / math ] things without the spaces. [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] =Uncool-

Adib, think you could latexise it? I cannot read what you wrote. =Uncool-

Not quite - P(0) is not (n-1)!/n!. For example, P(0) for 4 is 3/8, not 1/4. The actual answer is: 1/1! - 1/2! + ... + (-1)^(n - 1)/n! (iirc). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derangement =Uncool-

The series for e^x is 1 + x + x^2/2 + ... + x^n/n! + ... So the series for e^(-x^2/2) is 1 - x^2/2 + x^4/4 - x^6/(3!2^3) + ... + (-1)^n x^(2n)/(2^n n!) + ... Therefore, the series for erf(x) is C + x - x^3/6 + x^5/20 - x^7/(7*3!*2^3) + ... + (-1)^n x^(2n + 1)/(2^n n! 2n+1) + ... C = 0, so the series is erf(x) = x - x^3/6 + x^5/20 - x^7/(7*3!*2^3) + ... + (-1)^n x^(2n + 1)/(2^n n! 2n+1) + ... =Uncool-

...there's nothing to even compare. The quotation simply is saying it's nice to have an explanation. That's it. There's no "compare," there's no "contrast," there's nothing. =Uncool-

Nah, I mean actually finding a prime. I know the usual methods today are simply finding a pseudoprime, which is very likely to be prime, by checking fermat's little theorem. However, that doesn't guarantee the primality of the number found. =Uncool-

Yeah...now that's an interesting find - that prime testing can be done in poly time of the log of the prime. What is the current least prime-finding algorithm so far? =Uncool-

Gah...bad terminology. I meant to say that it wouldn't work for any nontrivial (nonconstant). =Uncool-