liars_paradox

If pencils are cheaper than pens, and pens are cheaper than erasers; and Peter does not have enough money to buy 5 pens; which of thefollowing will be the most appropriate answer? a. Peter has money to buy 1 pen b. Peter does not have money to buy 1 pen c. Peter has money to buy 5 pencils d. Peter has money to buy pencils but not enoughmoney to buy pens e. Peter has enough money to buy erasers 8Z5*CD2%J$7SQRI@Z12 What willcome in place of the question mark (?) in the following series based on the above arrangement? 58C *ZD C52 ? a. D*% b. 2CJ c. $%S d. 7JQ

I think that recall reading this back when I was in high school, but I think that it kind of works like a scanner or a copy machine - except that it's in 3-dimensions, scans more than just the surface of the object/substance, and the old copy is destroyed and then remade somewhere else. However, I think that they could only get this to work with certain gases, but I could be wrong. It's been a while since I read this article. Again, if you're talking about what I think that you're talking about, then distance wouldn't matter. The information about the original is stored after the original object has been "scanned", and then remade somwhere else. But, the distance that this data would be transmitted or how far someone would have to walk with some storage media that contained the data wouldn't matter. What "link" to cyberspace? Do you even know what the Cyberspace is? I wasn't sure when I read your post, so I had to go look it up, but it looks like the "cyberspace" is really just a cyberpunk term for the internet. Similar terms for a future network of computers that would one day span the entire globe, are things like "matrix", and some other things that I forget actually. No not really, CyberSpace doesn't really exist. Your question shows that you have very little understanding of what all these things are that it would be difficult to have a genuine discussion with you. But, assuming that what you mean by "CyberSpace" is just data transmissions over media in networks or perhaps storage media, and not some fantasy world that's portrayed in the movies, then it really would depend on what you mean by "you"? Like, if your "consciousness" could be stored in digital media, would then that be "you"? Or, would be defining "you" as like ALL of the atoms in your body, and then that you travel through "CyberSpace" much like the guys on Star Trek where your original "you" would be ripped apart and made into nothing, and then your new "you" would be reassembled somewhere else? Not really, actually. With storing your atoms it seems, to me, the only problem would be having the storage to store all of your molecular information. That, and having the materials to recreate you available and a mechanism to actually do it. However, there are some things that humans are capable of doing, that would be absolutely impossible for a human to do. Meaning, that there is no engineering, no research into AI, or anything else like that can actually make machines like humans. Certain things that we are capable of doing are Turing Impossible, meaning that a Turing Machine can't perform these tasks. And, if a Turin Machine can't do it, then neither can a real computer either. Yeah, but it isn't a physical "you" that would be teleported, but rather a conceptual "you" is transmitted over a medium and then received somewhere else. Maybe the Star Trek teleportation things is unreal, because they're materialized in the middle of anywhere. But, maybe between teleporting devices? Again, the receiving end has to be able to make you out of something and they'd probably have to kill the original you just so there isn't two you's running around.

But, with the market saturation in mind, then how are they ever going to make any money if almost everyone already has a copy of the older version? Of course, they're going to make a newer version of their software, even if the old one was just fine, because that's how they're going to make more money.

Or, you could just go for a teaching license instead and teach Computer Science AP to high school kids. I think that going this route would take less time and would be cheaper, but you would do this if you actually wanted to do any teaching. If you hate being around high school kids or hate teaching people things that they don't understand, then you probably should go get your masters and then maybe a PhD. However, if teaching is something you find yourself driven to do, then go for it. If you want to try out the idea of teaching, then maybe you could go to a community college and teach programming.

Okay, I'm going to try see if I understand this sentence. If I did the following to your sentence above, would it have the intended meaning of your original sentence? When I first read your sentence, I did actually think that you said something like "if (DNA==binaryRNA) ....", which threw me off and took me a while to figure out your sentence. lol. I'm sure most of you don't actually experience that, but I know that I did and just had to make sure. The "current coding structure"? Which one is that, the hypothetical one or the real-life one? I think that in real-life, the codon's structure isn't redundant. If I'm not mistaken, the 3 base pairs is the smallest unit of "code" for DNA/RNA. The only redundancy that you encounter is between the valid string of codons. I think that the valid string starts with a specific codon (I forget what), and ends with another codon (I also don't remember that one either). But, in between the finish and start codons is the redundant DNA/RNA. This technique is much like one technique that they use for data transmission in networks. They surround the good data with redundant data, before they transmit the data, in the hopes that the useless data will protect the good data. I know that you don't believe, so it definitely wouldn't seem like anything did, and I understand your reasons for seeing things like this. But, for me, it sort of seems like something did. Like how with transmitted data in networks you have redundant code that surrounds the valid code, I think that the same applies to DNA. In case something happens to a cell's DNA that would cause it to mutate, the redundant code acts a barrier around the valid string of codons. The readable DNA is broken up into smaller segments, each surrounded by redundant DNA, so as to decrease the chances that the readable DNA would be mutated.

You have the following series Would anyone know what is causing the series to turn out like this? Like if the first couple of memebers in the number series can represented as the following: [math]{a}_{0} = 354[/math] [math]{a}_{1} = 180[/math] Is there some sort of recursive relationship that would allow one to find the value for [math]{a}_{i}[/math]?

Which there isn't, right? I know that I might sound stoopid for asking, but you're saying the 6 pair codon would exist hypothetically if what the OP said was true, am I correct? Because, I think that codons only come in pairs of three, right? You're right. I remember ATP from high school. As another poster pointed out, it's not necessarily number 4-state number system. With binary you have two states, with zero and one representing false and true - respectively. The number of bits, however really just represent the number of places that are used to represent the number. For instance, the numbers 8 to 15 would need 4-bits, or places, to be represented in binary, but you can represent those numbers with an arbitrary number of places that is greater than 4. But, all the numbers in binary are the same as the numbers that can be represented in the octal, decimal, and hexadecimal number systems - you just convert them. There's nothing really "developed" about it though. A number system with a base of two is no less developed than one that uses a base of 4, or 8, 10, or 16. They're really just the same numbers anyways. The advantage of using number systems with a higher base would be that they're cheaper to represent on paper or any visual media. However, the larger the base the more visual symbols are needed that represent the digits that are smaller than the base number. Not a whole lot, I guess. 4-bits doesn't really store anything these days, right? As another poster pointed out, it's not necessarily number 4-state number system. With binary you have two states, with zero and one representing false and true - respectively. The number of bits, however really just represent the number of places that are used to represent the number. For instance, the numbers 8 to 15 would need 4-bits, or places, to be represented in binary, but you can represent those numbers with an arbitrary number of places that is greater than 4. But, all the numbers in binary are the same as the numbers that can be represented in the octal, decimal, and hexadecimal number systems - you just convert them. There's nothing really "developed" about it though. A number system with a base of two is no less developed than one that uses a base of 4, or 8, 10, or 16. They're really just the same numbers anyways. The advantage of using number systems with a higher base would be that they're cheaper to represent on paper or any visual media. However, the larger the base the more visual symbols are needed that represent the digits that are smaller than the base number. Not a whole lot, I guess. 4-bits doesn't really store anything these days, right? It depends on the system that you're using. Binary only works for computers because it's easier to have gates which only need to be able to tell the difference between HIGH or LOW voltage. I recall from my computer science Networking class, that one Line Coding technique uses three states to represent a digit. Meaning, that you needed 3 states to represent something like -5, 0, and +5 volts. But, this form of line coding has its uses and isn't something that you use with everything else. I guess that the same would apply to a base-4 number system.

What happened to the 2 here? Did you just simply drop it or did something else happen to it? And, what about your formula: [math]\sum_{i=j}^{k} c = (j-k+1)\cdot c[/math]? Wouldn't it be more like [math]\sum_{i=j}^{k} c = (k-j+1)\cdot c[/math], where j is subtracted from k as opposed to it being the other way around?

For the following picture: The description for the picture said: source: Cycle Detection (2011). Wikipedia.org Shouldn't the table read more like "2,0,6,3,1" under f(x)?

Hi, simple question I have here. I was wondering how you would go from the following expression: to this one: ?