DJBruce

Congrats ajb. Surely this is just the first of many more to come. I look forward to reading you work again when I actually understand what you are discussing.

So awhile back I found some interesting problems from older versions of the Michigan Autumn Take Home Challenge, but sadly they do not post answers to the past exams. While going through a few of them I ran into some that stumped me: 1. Which is greater [math]10!!!!!! [/math] or [math] 10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10^{10}}}}}}[/math] (Note: In evaluating towers of exponents, precedence rules state that evaluation should be from the top down rather than from the bottom up. For example [math]2^{3^{2}}[/math] should be interpreted as [math]2^{9}[/math] ) I know that factorial growth generally outstrips exponential growth, so I would guess 10!!!!!! is greater, but I really am not confident in that guess. 2. Recall that for a nonempty finite set [math]S={x_{1},x_{2}...x_{3}}[/math] with mean [math]\bar{x}=\frac{x_{1}+x_{2}+...+x_{n}}{n}[/math] the standard deviation of S id defined to be [math]\sigma=\sqrt{\frac{(x_{1}-\bar{x})^{2}+(x_{2}-\bar{x}+...(x_{n}-\bar{x})^{2})^{2}}{n}}[/math] Prove or disprove: for any nonempty finite set S of positive real numbers, the standard deviation of s cannot be larger the the mean of S. My thoughts for this one were to assume that S describes a binomial distribution where n=100, p<<<q. For my counter example I let: [math] n=100, p=1x10^{-7}, q=.9999999[/math] In this situation [math]\bar{x}=np=(100)(1x10^{-7})=1x10^{-5}[/math] [math]\sigma=\sqrt{npq}=\sqrt{(100)(1x10^{-7})(.9999999)}\approx.00316[/math] [math] \sigma=.00316>\bar{x}=1x10^{-5}[/math] So since I have a counterexample their statement is shown to be false. Is this a proper way to prove this or not?

Personally, I could really care less what religion Beck is. If I remember correctly he actually converted to LDS as he fought his addiction to alcohol. So if he found help overcoming his addiction in a church good for him. As for the implication that this interferes with his tea partying, I really don't think the LDS is that much of a fringe group. If this was the 1800's then yeah he would be considered fringe, but now I think they are considered pretty, although at times annoying with their door to door stuff.

I've actually seen this publicized a few times on Fox News, more specifically The O'Reilly Factor, but they were basically bashing the Obama Administration over it. So I would think you might be right that they are not fishing for votes. Although I do not see any real reason for the case to be dismissed, and I definelty makes me slightly nervous about Obama's position on discrimination and reverse racism. Just as a little hypothetical. Do you guys think the case would have been dismissed had the person standing out front been a neo-nazi yelling slurs at African America's. I would put money that they would be punished the full extent of the law, just as they should. In my mind Lady Justice is blind.

I really dislike the conspiracy theories like: -We did not go to the moon. -But, we did do 9/11. -The government is controlled by a secret society of rich Jewish bankers. I also dislike those who claim that Einstein stole all of his ideas from other people.

I have no idea on its accuracy, but Wikipedia is one hell of a tool, and it looks pretty right to my untrained eye.

Ok I was going try and refrain from replying of topic to this thread again, but I feel compelled to defend myself. First, no where in this thread or any other thread have I ever claimed to be the smartest person around, or even to be smart. Secondly, you are the one who stated that humans had perfect symmetry not me. I was simply refuting your claims. I did not dismiss the idea that humans have approximate bilateral symmetry just that the have perfect symmetry as you have stated. Third, I would like to suggest again that you refrain from personal attacks. They get you know where in an argument, and there use cause you to loss a lot of credibility, at least in my eyes. Also as previously pointed out they are against forum rules. I at no point attacked you personally, I simply debated your argument. So please refrain from attacking me.

First that is not the shape of a true human being, and does not take into account the numerous variability in a human. Secondly even your drawing does not show perfect symmetry. Upon taking a step back I wanna apologize to rigney for helping hijacking this thread about the Mayan Apocalypse. I would also like to apologize to the moderators in the event that I helped cause them to have to clean up this thread. That being said I feel like the Mayan calender ending does not predict anything about the apocalypse. I feel like this consipracy theory has found a home with the numerous crack pots that inhabit the internet, and ignore the facts

With all of these examples in mind my body does not have perfect symmetry, and as such your universal statment is invalid. What the heck does this mean? I will state that the majority of human beings exhibit approximately bilateral symmetry. As for your assertion though that we have perfect symmetry I will say no I will not agree with this at all.

You might not get this, but just because your method creates what you deem to be a special pattern does not mean your method is correct. When you are simply throwing directions willy nilly helter skelter with the verse of anything you are not creating something that is correct. You are creating something that is an arbitrary coincidence.

Actually if I remember my biology correctly I believe the earliest organism belonged to the branch radiata. This would mean that we did not always have two halves perfectly symmetric halves.

I thought you said to ignore the structures of the body, and simply to focus on its outside appearance? Ad hominem and me so great arguments are fallacies, and do not prove anything. Also as a heads up these arguments are against the forum rules so be careful using them.

No the outside of a body is not perfectly symmetric. Most, I would dare say all but would probably be called to show proof, bodies have slight abnormalities that make perfect symmetry impossible. For example, a leg that is slightly longer than the other, a dominate hand which has more muscle mass than the non-dominate hand ect. would all mean that a body would not be perfectly symmetrical. Also as a philosophy student you should realize that a universal statement like is exceptionally hard to prove as it takes one negative existentialism statement to disprove it. Klaplunk science by definition deals with truth:

I am going to agree with Capn and say that this "pattern" is completely arbitrary, and really has no meaning. Just because you can set up a random set of instructions to create a shape does not mean that there is a true pattern.

What does carry back one mean?

1. iNow 2. UC 3. n/a 4. Bascule 5. ydoaPs 6. n/a

So Google Wave is now officially open for public sign up, although it is still not considered to be fully functional. I know that a few members here have already had an account for quite some time. What do you guys think about it? Personally I think it is pretty cool, and I think that it definitely has promise. The problem I have is than so few users actually have accounts that it makes using it very limited. If they were to merge all there Gmail accounts into Google Wave accounts I think that it would definitely prove to be very useful.

Can I ask what your question about this video is? Also you really shouldn't post the same thing multiple times. If you post it once someone will eventually reply to it.

1) Yep that is right. 2) Well if you have ever seen the picture you would notice it contains an alcohol functional group. 3) The actual ending for an alcohol is "ol". This means that cholesterol contains the ending for an alcohol, and therefore must be an alcohol.

This seems like homework so I won't give you the answer to number one, but here are some questions that might help you get the answer. -What is functional group that makes something an alcohol? -Have you looked at a picture of cholesterol? -What is the ending added to words that are alcohols?

Well then you could simply inquire if your professor would be willing to get the article. If he is a specialist in this field he might even already have access to the journal.

To be honest I have only heard of a few of those physicists that you list, and after doing a little research on the ones I didn't know I will still stand by my previous team. At least my list was created with no conscious consideration of nationality. There are many very good physicists, and 186 of them have won a Nobel Prize in the 108 years its been awarded, but when it comes down to naming the top 11 for a football team there are more things to consider than just winning a Nobel Prize.

Here is my team: Goal: Galileo Left Back: Newton Right Back: Maxwell Center Back: Einstein Center Back: Bohr Left Mid: Schrodinger Right Mid: Faraday Center Mid: Feynman Center Mid: Dirac Striker: Fermi Striker: Pauli On the bench: Boltzmann, Heisenberg, Thompson, Penrose, and Hawking, Swansont, As the English found out it is really important to have a solid keeper, and I also like a solid defense. For those reasons I put those physicist I view as the best or most important on the defense. Next in the mids I put those physicists that I view as incredible, but that did not quite make as fundamental impacts as the backs. The strikers and bench players are basically the other physicists that I like.

Do student evaluations really matter that much to professors? CharonY as you are part of academia, maybe you can confirm this. According to one of my biology teacher who spent a long while in school, he has his PhD. in Biology, some professors actually allow cheating. Justifying this by saying that outside of school people cheat all of the time, and if you really feel like cheating it will eventually catch up with you. Have you ever heard of such policies, and if so how prevalent are they?

I really do not see much of a problem with this law. It seems to mean that this ruling is honestly not that extreme, or that much on an infringement on freedom of speech. If the court believes, and I agree with them, that this speech can cause on occasion the harm of people then I feel like this ruling is in agreement with the long held test set up that speech can be deemed unacceptable if "the words create a clear and present danger." A question I have is that it is generally held that during a time of war speech can be restricted more than during a time of peace. As Justice Oliver Wendel homes stated: "When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." We are technically not at war with all of the organizations classified as terrorist organizations, but does this more stringent restriction of speech apply today?