DJBruce

Here is another clock one that has an answer: Assuming a regular analog clock, what is the angle between the minute and the hour hand at 3:15?

So its getting to be that time of year again were many SFN'ers are going back to school. So what are your guy's schedules, or if you are teaching what are you teaching? My schedule is: -ENGLISH 125: College Writing (4 Credit Hours): This is just the standard required freshman writing course. According to what I have heard the focus of this course is on learning and refining the revising process. To do this my section will look at material, both fiction and non-fiction, pertaining to mental illness. -MATH 295: Honors Mathematics I (4 Credit Hours): This is the beginning of the advanced calculus sequence. This course focuses heavily on the theory rather than the application. In it we will cover Calculus: Spivak in the semester. To be completely honest this is the class I am probably most excited for. I can’t wait for it to start. -MATH 289: Problem Solving (1 Credit Hour): The goal of this course is to help students learn new problem solving strategies by working through numerous different problems in both small groups and individually. This course is supposed to help prepare students to compete in the Putnam Competition and other math competitions. -PHYSICS 160: Honors Physics I (4 Credit Hours): This course is the introductory mechanics course that is a prerequisite to my major in physics. So it is basically your standard calculus physics course. This class will use Matter and Interactions: Modern Mechanics 3rd Ed. by Chabay and Sherwood. -PHYSICS 161: Honors Mechanics Lab (1 Credit Hour): Again just your introductory physics lab. Nothing special, however, it is a prerequisite to my major. -UROP: Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (1-4 Credit Hours): I get set up with a faculty member doing research and get to participate in doing research. Depending on the amount of time I work I can earn anywhere from 1 to 4 credit hours of credit. I am hoping to do research in physics, but I wouldn't mind doing it in math either.

It looks like it, and when I checked it by hand and calculator it seemed to work. So I am assuming you must have just entered something improperly into your calculator. (Ergo why I asked you to check it manually.)

Did you try checking your math by hand?

Are you suggesting that human being can predict a number generated from a random number generator?

I am not sure about the quantity of research conducted on urine therapy, however, I would think that the fact urine therapy shows no health benefits is because it in fact does not work.

Generally drinking one's own urine is a fairly safe. There is a risk of one dehydrating themselves as urine contains many salts. It is also possible for urine to contain remnants of previously taken medications, which can pose a problem. Urine can also be contaminated with bacteria. However, these things are fairly rare. As for if drinking urine provides amazing health benefits I doubt it does. It sounds like your friend is believing in urine therapy, which as far as I know has never been validated by science.

Yes you understood the problem perfectly, and I agree that the situation might not be perfect, however, it conveys the underlying moral dilemma.

I am fairly certain that it is one of the solutions to question.

11.1) I would continue to go straight and hit the pedestrian. I would not feel any responsibility for the persons death since I did not attempt to kill them, but instead they walked out in front of my car and forced me to choose between my life and their life. 11.2) No you should not be charged with murder of any sorts. To charge you for murder would be saying that your choice was wrong, and you should have swerved and hit the wall. So essentially it would be saying the life of the pedestrian was more valuable than your own. 11.3) Yes the pedestrian should be charged with some sort of murder. They forced you to choose between your life and their life so they are in part responsible for your actions and subsequently your death.

The standard formula for compounding interest is: [math]A\left(t\right)=P\left(1+r\right)^{t}[/math] Where: [math]A\left(t\right)=[/math] amount in account [math]t=[/math] time periods passed[ [math]P=[/math] the principle deposit [math]r=[/math] the growth rate So in your case of 7.5% interest: [math]A\left(t\right)=P\left(1+.075\right)^{\frac{t}{4}}[/math] The [math]\frac{t}{4}[/math] comes from the fact that I am letting [math]t[/math] represent the number of months since investment, but since your interest compounds quarterly you must divide the number of months by four. As for your questions about how long it will take a certain deposit to reach a certain amount, it seems like you are interested in doubling your money. In that case it does not matter what your principle is. To prove this: [math]P=p[/math] [math]A\left(t\right)=2p[/math] ie: twice your starting amount [math]A\left(t\right)=2p=p\left(1+.075\right)^{\frac{t}{4}}[/math] [math]\frac{2p}{p}=\frac{p}{p}\left(1+.075\right)^{\frac{t}{4}}=2[/math] [math]log_{1.075}\left(2\right)=log_{1.075}\left(\left(1+.075\right)^{\frac{t}{4}}\right)[/math] [math]log_{1.075}\left(2\right)=\frac{t}{4}[/math] [math]4log_{1.075}\left(2\right)=\frac{4t}{4}=t[/math] [math]t=4log_{1.075}\left(2\right)=38.337[/math] So at 7.5% interest it will take you about 39 months to double your principle investment.

It appears like the force refresh fixed the problem thanks. If you still wanna know: Your User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100722 AskTbBT5/3.8.0.12304 Firefox/3.6.8 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C)

I appear to be having the exact same issue as Serverian.

As far as I am able to find most of things you have cited for you point are either not proper sources, or appear to be ones that care a fairly racist bias. The video you posted seems to make many claims, almost all of which are unsupported. The one source which I was able to glean from the video was a paper entitled, "Global Jihad Lifting the Veil of Islam". This paper appears to be published by a sited entitled The Last Days Ministries, which is all about showing what they believe to be an upcoming doomsday. So in my opinion this paper already has no scientific standing as it was "published" by a completely unreliable source. Aside from this the paper appears to be highly biased against Islam as shown by the fallacious generalizations found in the first two paragraphs: So the video really provides no reliable backing for its statements other than some flimsy unscientific paper with racial undertones. Further analysis of the claims in the video have been shown to be mostly false by many different people including snopes.com. The other paper you sited appears to never have been published in a peer review journal, and it appears as if the author is known to have some anti-Islamic feelings, which would definitely cause at least a little bias on a topic like this. The Wikipedia links you posted seem to show virtually no support for your point. The list of the Muslim populations by country really shows absolutely nothing to verify you point. Looking on the map of the other link it looks like that many of the "Muslim countries" show a total fertility rate roughly the same as that of America's, or just above it. So in all I really have not found that much evidence from the things you posted to show that the fertility rate for Muslim's is drastically higher than that of other groups. I also wonder why it would matter if in fact Muslim's did have a drastically higher fertility rate.

11.1) You are driving along in your car coming to an intersection with a green light. As you approach the intersection someone not paying attention begins to cross the street right in front of you. You are unable to stop and have only two options: A) Continue going straight hit the pedestrian, but allowing you to escape unharmed. B.) Vere hard to your right into a brick wall. The pedestrian will be saved, but you will more than likely die upon impact. What do you? 11.2) If you selected A in 11.1 should you be charged for the pedestrians death even though your only other option was to commit suicide to save them? 11.3) If you selected B in 11.2 should the pedestrian be charged for your death since he caused you to have to swerve in order to save them?

No zero probability is not an option if we assume that the number you keep supporting as the probability of life forming is [math] 10^{-41000}[/math].

I simply converted Mr. Skeptic's original statement to a limit statement. In this case the I simply denoted the size of the universe, or the number of planets with the variable n. So you can say probability of life forming is a function of the size of the universe, n. Then I used a limit to describe the behavior of the function: [math] f\left(n\right)=1-\left(1-10^{-41000}\right)^{n}[/math] The limit basically means that as your n gets really really big, ie: close to infinity, the function f(n) approaches a value of 1.

I am going to guess that Mr. Skeptic just used shorthand in his quoted post. Yes you cannot plug infinity into an equation, however: [math] \lim_{n\to\infty} 1-\left(1-10^{-41000}\right)^{n}=1-0=1[/math] So there Mr. Skeptic's point still stands. [math] \lim_{n\to\infty} \left(10^{-41000}\right)\left(n\right)=\infty[/math] Again solved. Mr. Skeptic's point is still valid, and and I said I am guessing he simply used quick shorthand, which although "technically" not correct conveys the point quickly in an informal discussion.

Well now this sounds exactly like an opinion, and if we are in the mood to share opinions. Capn, your demonstration was very compelling. Cypress your rebuttal on the other hand was much much less than compelling. As I pointed out you did not start out with the claim that we are concern with the development of life only on Earth. So at some point the goal posts were moved.

Personally I feel like the belief in a deity often times relies on a person to have faith in it, as creating a scientific proof for the existence of a deity is impossible. Since scientists spend a majority of their life reject things that are based purely on faith and accepting those things, which are well tested and proven. Scientists also tend to be skeptics as some degree of skepticism as required for a good scientist to do their job. It could also be said that people who are scientists tend to be very gifted at critical thinking and have an inquisitive nature. As such they do not blindly follow a faith because of their parents wishes or a societal norm, and instead go about considering why they should believe in a deity. While a great deal of the populous in my opinion simply follow their faith out of adherence to those traditions and norms without challenging them., or at least not challenging them on a scientific level.

How will you vary the magnetism acting on each astronaut? The amount of force needed to keep a 110 female astronaut on the ground would not be the same as the force required to keep a 210 male astronaut on the ground.

Then please do share your arguments that show the illogical conclusions arising from an infinite universe. Secondly what we lack in observable evidence we make up for with predictions from some of our best theories. As for the argument being based on speculation I would also venture that your argument that the probability life could form is [math]10^{-41000}[/math] is based on certain speculations; such as that not all the enzymes most develop at once or that chemical process can favor the creation of more complex molecules. That has been your claim, which as far as I can tell has no been backed up. That does not seem to be the assertion that this thread was begun with, as Mr. Skeptic's quote you posted dealt with an infinite universe, and not specifically Earth. Actually I do not think that you even use the word "Earth" in your original post.