timo

I was making fun of the syntax of your statement ("do not" instead of "may not"), not its content. Might still be correct English -I'm just a stupid non-native speaker- but I sure found it funny. Perhaps as something more constructive (humorless mob!): For any representation with a finite number of symbols, say ASCII, the answer is probably "no".

That's not very depending .

Hi Linnyk, I'd have to read up a few first principles to give a definite answer which I don't have the time for at the moment. It does look ok in principle. Two comments: - I am not convinced that the 0.674 is correct. Question B seems to ask for having passed exactly two exams, not at least two exams, which is what you calculated the 0.674 for. - The way I had done it would have been to take the ratio of the probabilities to pass two exams where one of them is math, and the probability to pass any two exams. In your language [math]\frac{AB^cC+ABC^c}{A^cBC+AB^cC+ABC^c}[/math] (I am assuming exactly two exams here; 2 or 3 would look different but similar, of course). With simple rearranging this does directly lead to what you wrote, which is why I think it should be correct (except possibly for the 0.674, depending how you interpret the question).

The answer for b does not look right. It's a bit more tricky but I think you can figure it out with a bit more thinking so I'll not give any real hints. I'll give you a counter-example showing that your result went wrong, though (a somewhat silly one but it'll do the trick, I think): Assume the tossing of two coins: A ) What is the probability to the heads in the first toss? B ) Provided you got heads in the first toss, what's the probability to get heads in the 2nd toss. The way you solved your question the answers would be: A ) the two possibilities to get heads in the first toss are HH and HT, each with 0.25 probability. So the probability for A is 0.5. Perfectly fine so far. B ) By your calculation, the probability to get heads in the 2nd toss (provided you got heads in the 1st toss) would be [math]1 - {\rm HB}^c = 1 - 0.75 = 0.25[/math], which is obviously wrong.

That is the three possible ways to pass exactly two exams. You're asked about the probability to pass at least two exams. In principle yes, that's how to do it. But take into account my previous comment. I don't think online pages will help you. You are already given an example problem and there's no way of learning that competes with solving problems yourself. I don't think you need aid with what type of formula to use: you are already doing pretty good so far. Just ask for more advice the same way you just did (i.e. also include your ideas how to solve the problem) in case you get stuck with b. Your English is fine, btw (for me as a non-native speaker myself, that is). It's certainly more readable than what some native speakers write. Perhaps consider using a spell-checker for your browser if you want to get rid of some typos.

I'm not sure if I understand the question. But I'd assume the CS in which addition holds and then either rotate or (even easier) rescale it. Component addition should work in this new system, too. I am assuming that you speak of vector spaces, though.

- the different spacetime structure of the related fields; rank-1 vs. rank-2 tensor. - the different coupling to matter properties. - anti-photons are just photons. "purely theoretical" in this case means that no experimental evidence exists (it's a bit worse in fact). It does not mean it is an undefined term for everyone to project their ideas on. What I meant with the example is that you can always say "maybe X is just a form of Y" as soon as you either ignore the common meaning of X or Y, or as soon as you pull the "but maybe everything is different than we think"-statement (which is quite pointless). EDIT: Sorry if above is a bit rude. Lately, I'm slightly annoyed by people talking about modern physics without even knowing the basics. That's of course neither your fault nor a justification for being rude, so no offense meant. Content-wise, my statements still stand, of course.

Unless you consider "maybe a house cat is a horse" an interesting statement to explore they aren't.

I was about to ask if you happen to be a chemist by chance. But I guess the "chemistry expert" sign kind of answers that. You are probably right that if your world consists of protons and electrons, a ratio of the forces can be given. It's actually pretty similar to my example of a particle physicist who also investigates a limited range of effects on a limited scale (ignoring the infamous Planck units for a second ). In practice, relevant forces and their (relative) magnitudes depend on the phenomenon (e.g. a neutron star where relevant forces are gravity and volume-dependency of the energy levels) and also how you view it. It's perfectly fine if you think that there is a force between sun's protons and earth electrons that is countered by another force between both objects' electrons. But you can also consider the electric field caused by the sun (pretty much zero) and then look at its effect on earth and compare that to sun's gravitational field and its effect on earth (non-zero). There is not much reason to call one view correct and the other one wrong (I could argue that the field-based approach is more modern but that doesn't make the force-based view wrong).

To fake being on-topic: No. There's no reason to assume gravity was a form of magnetism. According to mainstream physics the answer is even more strict: it isn't. Actual point (off-topic but I find it worthwhile commenting on a common and in my opinion incorrect statement): It is indeed common to throw around such ratios but I tend to deny that they make any sense outside a well-defined context. For example, a particle physicist might take the heaviest object he'll ever expect to encounter and compare the expected gravitational force (say, assuming classical gravity) to the force felt if two such objects had an electric charge of one. Without such a rather well-constrained context, I doubt that such ratios have any meaning. Or asked the other way round: What do you think it means that "the electromagnetic force is 10^36 times larger than the gravitational force"? For sun and earth, it's pretty widely acknowledged that gravity is the dominating force, for example.

I'm not sure what you call "would it be possible". On the paper, you can take an isolated black hole and get any amount of light deviation you want; including the light-rays bending around 180° and coming back. In practice this 1) requires an isolated black hole and 2) does not ensure that the few rays being bent 180° are enough to provide any useful information. The gravitational field of a sun or any amount of suns is not going to be sufficient if that was your question. The reason is that the light deviation becomes stronger the closer you are to the center of the gravitating object. At a sun you have reached the sun's surface long before you get a sufficient deviation (e.g. deviations at our sun were measured in the order of 1°-2°, if I remember that correctly).

I would try to google and follow the first link: http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=179091 EDIT: Admittedly, it doesn't answer IF it is a problem; only how someone got rid of it. Point is: if you're not finding the answer to such a basic (and non-scientific) question within an hour on google, then no one here will be able to help you, either.

Here's one of the best advices for selling science you'll ever get: a nicely-colored five-minute plot will always impress people more than the 0.235(4) you pull out a two-day calculation (except people in your field who can judge the amount of work). Take a correlation you are interested in (e.g. "academic level" and "number of posts") and plot a 2D histogram N(academic level, number of posts). Histograms for dummies (dunno your level so no offense meant): You start with N(...,...)=0. Then, for each question form, you read off A, the bar for academic level, and B, the bar for number of posts. Then, you increase the respective entry in the histogram: N(A,B) -> N(A,B)+1. Repeat that for all forms, then draw the thing. EDIT: The "B)" smiley is a pain in the ass.

Yes. The value is equal to one over the Gamov factor (in seconds). In this case, a good approximation for the Gamov factor is taking the energy of the protons and divide it by 1 GeV, the mass of a proton.

I'm somewhat confused. Wasn't the question answered quite exhaustively in a previous thread of yours (http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50243-is-it-possible-to-change-the-direction-of-ions-with-magnetic-field/)? In practice, the charged particles will not circulate continuously but stop that motion sooner or later; be it because of radiating off energy or more simply because of collisions with other particles. A sample application is bubble chambers where from the curvature of the path you can deduct some properties of the particles (e.g. identify anti-electrons from the opposite direction of rotation).

N Big enough? I don't think the number of participants was growing lately, anyways.

- Few would disagree. - The thread gets a lot of participation. think about it.

If I interpret "old school doctor" in the way that you are still in school, then the next tests you write should give you a rather good impression where you stand. It also measures more important skills (how well you do at school tests vs. how well you do at IQ tests), offers you a non-anonymous reference group, and allows comparison to your level before your injury.

That reminds me of a Terry Pratchett book where the heroes try to worsen their chances to kill the dragon because if it's "one in a million" then it must succeed, whereas no one ever heard of "one in five-hundred" to work.

Real men use the (grand-)canonical ensemble

There's a non-zero chance that they don't.

Obviously, not all atheists are the same and there's no organized church of atheism whose "official statements" one could cite. So I can only speak for myself. Depending on your particular implementation of Christianity, there's a few things I could offer you in principle: sex before marriage, sex for fun rather than only for reproduction, sex in other positions than Missionary, gay sex, ... <I find it rather interesting that all I can think of at the moment is related to sex>. But I don't quite see why I should offer you something. I don't quite see the need to ask you to stop believing in whatever god you worship unless in involves practices interfering with my life, e.g. worshiping the god of loud heavy metal at midnight when you're my neighbor . Actually, the believe would still be fine, just not the worship. None by choice of the natural zero level (which is believe in no god). Depending on the religion you follow, a few disadvantages can fall away. But those disadvantages not only depend on the goddess you follow, but also on whether you feel they are disadvantages. Example: for me, being expected to attend church every Friday would be a pain in the ass. But I have no doubts a lot of whatever-faith-has-churchday-on-friday followers enjoy seeing their fellow theists on a regular basis in this form. Same goes with other church specific things and naturally the advantages will tend to dominate. After all, who'd chose being a satanist if he doesn't like orgies and blood or a Buddhist if he finds fat people disgusting? The biggest problem for me is that the acceptance in god tends to come with the acceptance of "chosen ones" (be it prophet, child, attorney of a major prophet, church-trained expert preacher, highest religious authority who also happens to be the chief of military, whatever). Perhaps I am just too paranoid to be bullshitted when people tell me I should devote my life to their ideas or else The Makers won't take me with them in their spaceship. Simple answer: It's not. But it's obviously ridiculous if I ask you to call me god and worship me, even if I promise you the most glorious afterlife you can imagine plus some more. So somehow the promise of infinite glorious afterlife for only a bit of worship (and membership fees) is not necessarily the killer argument that it might seem at first glance.

I'm not sure if you got my point - but I am not sure what you are testing. If you say "guess the next number in the random sequence 30 26 14 17 19 24" then people can Google for "30 26 14 17 19 24" and get -at least in my case- exactly one hit: this thread.

Can't they just Google for your number sequence ?

I doubt that. Denergons are known to spontaneously decay into a riduculton anti-riduculton pair rather quickly which utlimately decay into sillitons and some heat.