DevilSolution

Yeh i agree, i'd digress we use logical neurologically to create consciousness but thats another debate. Axioms and Empirical data can't be disregarded however, although from such a point we can then ONLY use logic.

Q1) was asking if its possible to use the basic elements in any number of reactions to create any and all chemicals, like synthesising a particular hormone etc etc Q2) was asking if it were possible to simulate the permutations of possible chemicals and all there isomers and give some prediction of its physical properties. Q3) As for the infinite, i suppose this is more philosophical on where to draw the line, given atoms are building blocks i was just curious what you could build upto and if these bigger creations would serve a purpose. Q4) There wasnt one??

Okay i appreciate the whole astrology and pseudo science is false and that numerology has been branded with it, but it was my belief that numerology also encompasses that mathematics is the fundamental basis of nature and therefor is divine. By that i mean they fundamentally believe numbers are "God" and certain patterns and mathematical relationships are the "path" to "God". This is where i would like a line to be drawn, as i see it, a mathematician who dedicates his study to the workings of the circle finding relationships such as c / r = pi and all the various extensions is still a mathematician and even if he were to believe the circle is in someway divine due to its abstract nature then he shares a mutual ground of mathematician and numerology. I also think numerology can be a cop out for true mathematics when used for religious purposes specifically, like turning letters into numbers and finding some pattern of nature in a passage and so forth. True mathematicians look for relationships in nature not scripture. But that's where i'd draw the line, If a particular pattern, relation or abstract ideal is found to be used extensively throughout nature, then i think it fair to hold a belief that these things are god like or lead to a closer understanding of the "mind of god". So on the one hand you have people trying to use mathematics for their own religion means while on the other you have people trying to use mathematics to explain the universe. By "behind" you mean higher up in the hierarchy, such that numerology is "behind" astrology and mathematics is "behind" geometry? I think logic is probably top of the order also.

creates shampoo? i mean if we had infinite chemicals from the periodic table to start from. Nothing else.

I have a fundamental understanding of chemistry (electronegativity, covalent and ionic bonds, polarisation, acid / base, functional groups etc) but i dont have much hands on experience. I would like to know if its possible given you had infinite amounts of each chemical in the periodic table to synthesise any other chemical following a set of reactions. Furthermore if it is possible can we permute all the possible isomers, reactions and ultimately the chemical results to such a degree that we can predict its physical properties? One final thing, if the first proposition is true, would there not be an infinite amount of resulting chemicals? for example just adding n amount of carbons to a hydrocarbon and attaching it to a some functional group? Regards.

I was just curious to know whether people think there is a definite dividing line between the two, because it would seem somewhat intuitive for a mathematician to be numerologists by default. One such line ive heard drawn is when you look for a specific number or pattern everywhere, because doing so is a somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy. Also certain patterns and numbers of significance i believe do repeat in nature everywhere so where is line the drawn? Primarily PI, Fib and the golden ratio seem to be recurring everywhere. However you also get people finding abstract relations in patters of stairs or such which is nonsensical in my mind. So where dos mathematics end, numerology begin and is there some space for crossover?? Regards. Also as a little extra, could it be argued that philosophical branch of logic could be the base for numerology? Thats to say all mathematics is logical and mathematics explains nature therefor if we are to believe mathematics can explain the entirety of the universe, it fundamentally branches from logic and thus logic should be the basis for numerology?

I said england simply because its my home so its less likely to offend someone whos country im not a product of. I dont know about expenditure, was simply curious about the suns potential.

Because we loose energy through our atmosphere + the solar panels woudlnt suffer the constraints of night. Simply put they would get ALL the energy ALL the time and with magnification it just enhances the proposition

Firsly radiation containment: Is it possible to emit highly ionized particles in a (parabole if external, hyperbolic if from various locations or spherical if internal) to the location of nuclear fallout to the extent that the combined ionization equates to zero? Such that, for example, gamma radiation of the same or very similar (possibly higher) energy levels are emitted to the fallout location (prefferably within an instance of the chain reaction caused by the critical mass, but not exclusively, just as damage limitation) so that the instability of the sum of the ionized radiation is counter acted. (In the same regards as nullifying a beam of light in the corresponding thread). I would presume the gamma wavelength be of shorter distance to impact the radiation, although if the radiation is of vary lengths then the device emitting the radiation must equate how much of each wavelength to emit (possibly using statistical bounds) or else the radiation is uniform in its ionization levels and hence can be read before containment (though im guessing it disperses to lower levels relative to the impact site). Also if the radiation doesnt nullify the fallout, but adds to it, is there not some form of EMR that could absorb, counter act, or reverse the electron instability? For instance our ozone and poles stop *some* of the suns gamma radiation from reaching terra firma. Secondly, radiation shielding (en masse): Very much the same concept as above except here we want to emit the gamma particles internally (from an entire country) in a spherical shape (so just a dome). This is analogous to having the containment device internal to the impact site rather than external containment, although the device should be at the boundy of the sphere here while in containment it should be central. So the basic idea would be to have a device emit an array of varying gamma wavelengths externally in spherical form. Would these rays hinder any radiation from entering the area? 2 points here...Firstly i mean direct gamma or other EMR from entering the area, secondly what effects would emitting high level waves have on the external? Would unstable chemicals carried by the atmosphere (wind, rain, etc) become more unstable from the process? And given these chemicals are then to pass into the shielded area, would they, after entering and settling then stablise their electron instability through the stable chemicals within area, equating the instability throughout the area over time until the contaminated chemicals are stable at the expense of stable chemicals internal to the area? (Again i guess here that the chemicals that are electonegatively smaller will give up electrons to become isotopes, or chemicals with strong polarity will conbine with the unstable chemicals?). In the first case of shielding an area from external radiation (not contamination), would it be of greater defence against some widespread disaster (such as the entire disintergration of the ozone layer or russia's arsenal being set off by a firework on accident.....etc) than of the second case of contamination via atmospherics? 2 final questions regarding the shielding againsts contaminants. First, is there any chemical process that could be used to absorb and distribute electrons to the unstable contaminants entering the area, such as 2 specially designed chemicals, that are gasses but (by general default) dont interact, yet when unstable chemicals pass in the wind they either react with the chemicals to make new harmless chemicals which can possibly be collected, split and redistributed (leaving behind the unstable electron chemicals, which could be made stable via elecrolysis or such ionization processes) or the other chemical would be a donor that passes electrons and reverts to some stable state (such as overloading a chemical with surplus electrons, given the energy required to add electrons beyond its natural form is within reason, physically and economically viable). Therefor these 2 chemicals act to balance any contaminents entering the shielded area, but do not have any direct relation to the fallout radiation. My second question concerns the effects of a continious flow of gamma radiation externally, as the waves are short but will travel until they act upon another force (namely chemicals, and other EMR of the same wavelength?), will this continious flow of varying but very short wavelengths have a more detrimental effect on the external chemicals than it will stopping any gamma radiation entering the area, as most emitted rays will eventually hit the ozone layer and be deflected back , never escaping and as such just creating greater and greater levels or instability? A final question to summize, if fighting fire with fire only burns down the house faster (the gamma shield being a void idea), is there any other EM process that can sheild from radiation, such as having a huge electro magnetic field generated over the area with very high levels of energy and polarity rotating at speeds fast enough for the flux to deflect the fallout or have 2 EM fields, one contained within the other, that have opposite polarity. (Im only mentioning the polarity because the the sphere will only be half its full size, given it doesnt neccesarilly have to go underground as i presume the fallout radiation wouldnt pass through earth). Thats about it, i realize its not the easiest to read as i've been asking questions as they arrise and not in template form and also i obviously have lack of knowledge regarding EMR, quantum physics and various other aspects so some of this may be regarded as obvious or dumb. Also it's rather lengthy for substanance required to answer it so many regards to anyone whos able to read through it all. Thanks in advance.

I think if you send light down a blackhole you might nullify it. Depending on the frequency you could filter it with special optics, entirely nullifying it with a counter beam is unprobable due to the neccesity of knowing its exact waveĺength and originating coordinates for its path. If you hit at any other angle then you would displace the energy not nullify it. Regards.

Quick question, could we magnify the sun into (or onto) an array of solar panels that then transfer the energy to earth using radiation (microwave?). Secondly could it be magnified (concerntrated) to the extent that it becomes a high energy beam (like a laser cutter that uses mirrors and optics) from some satelite in space, do we have the technology to make such a device and what effect would the earths atmosphere have if it were to be aimed at say....england. Regards.

Your mind wanted you to. Your brain is responsible for your perception of reality, in the absence of empirical data we can only give speculative answers to your descrition. One such speculative answer is that there was a very short power outage in your house and what you percieved was merely the reflection of light through some innanimate object through the curtains caused by passing headlights........ Lack of oxygen to brain will cause temporary dimming of your surroundings (carrying heavy luggage into the house). If you passed any illuminated statues outside a church or such on your travels that could have inprinted on your most recent visual memory, then that image becomes externally projected as your mind is recovering (or deleting said image) from lack of oxygen. The list can go on and on. Ultimately your mind controls what you percieve so theres always a chance somethings entered your subconscious and your mind has pushed onto you consciously...

Hi, i havent read through your whole paper as time is limited, however just to clarify the complexity of an algorithm defined by the theoretical time taken to compute said algorithm isnt the process of logical deduction but the inferred solution to the algorithm itself. Just for example P != NP for any problem where we cannot pre-determain how many iterations the solution must iterate or recur. When we know such a solution exists by how many iterations then the solution is deduction but when the solution is not known we can only infer a "best case". This is regardless of notation or abstraction. You can sometimes tailor an algorthm to give such results hence deducing the solution but some problems have no simplification other than brute force or such..... Can you prove P = NP via SAT? Although most see the traveling salesman as prime candidate for proof, i think any SAT solver to = P would be the most effective proof.

Yes.

Yeh ive worked through unix, thats why im slightly confused. Is it the binaries like vi and pipes? Or full access to repo's? I dont mind either terminal, i have bash on my phone with most bins. Not rooted though.

Whats the debian console? Bash? Can it use tarballs and repo's? Windows specific repos? I dont like the sound of that. If not what does it have? /usr/bin/ or w/e the binaries are for the terminal. I quite like netsh and wmic on windows. W10 didnt seem to have anything special. I dont know about security.

I had a free game engine a few years back. Dark gdk i think. It was fairly intuitive.

Im using c++ on VS atm, its a basic console app that crunches accumulated fractions to look for natural numbers or more specifically the primes. Its always the 4th whole number and its consistently primes. Too late to dig any further. Its statistics mostly but also various other permutations etc. I prefer c/c++ but made a gui in c# .net for simplicity.

Well we do have brain waves Some are on other wavelengths, some waves are continuous and have no length. Only time.

Logic serves a special purpose in the brain in so much as its the only function with which we can truly distinguish one thing from another. Blue is not red, a chair is not a table, sound is not colour and EMR is not edible. We then use combinatorics to combine these separate entities into new entities such as putting a sharp stone on a long stick.....(the foundation for thought). By linking things that are not the same we come up with idea's of whats possible, and with that comes the question of why which if you do not use or have never asked then you are not conscious. consciousness is a highly constructed concept that inevitably comes from the linking of sets of neurons, with the chemical equation in there to balance us ( or un-balance ). consciousness looks for symbiosis in an otherwise completely hostile environment. It's less linked to the amount of neurons more so perhaps how those neurons are connected. Using the brick analogy from earlier, just compare the economical 70's in high rise estates to the architecture of old churches, castles, mosques etc. There's probably more bricks in london than in rome, but which do you prefer? the architectural aspect is most prominent in both cases of rome and consciousness. We'll all turn off one day. And will be totally unawares of it.

Sounds like the definition of statistics, I'm looking for the best way to "compute" various permutations and from the permutations i need to create probability based on the perms. For example if i wanted to permute all the odds for all football matches played on a weekend, i would want to permute all sets, say theres 100 matches, down to 2 or more likely 3. with win, loose and draw, and all the permutations of possible teams i would then calculate the probability based on the odds, such that evens is 50% bet, 2/1 is 66 and 33 percent etc. I would like to know if theres any methods like the simplex, that could be modified to optimise the raw calculations, or for example putting teams with the exact same odds into sets, what is the same for one is the same as the other which would reduce the calculations quite dramatically. As far as the probability goes i would be interested to find out the results after, look at which permutations would have won and look for some indication of the spread between the odds given and the results. This is an example of the types of processes i would like to permute and find ways of doing so without having 10 loops, a 3 cuboid arrays inside a cuboid array and overly excessive recursion. Regards.

Don't worry, this isn't intended as an open thread for what the best language is. Specifically im looking for a language that has easy to build GUI's but also crunches numbers, ALOT of them. I'm somewhat loathed to pick up any .net language, and i guess there arent many with numerical advantage. Cant use Java purely because theres too much effort with compatibility of DLL's that i require. I was using C# because its very easy to get started with but im thinking perhaps a c++ framework would be best with QT or such for graphical needs. c is what i've programmed in most but its too low level, c++ seems pretty strong but i dont know of any other languages that have the built in features of OOP and and containers etc I've programmed in Scala and Python a little but not sure they would be wholly compatible with the DLL's i require. Web frameworks look interesting in so much as the js and php might be sufficient and then the GUI is a webpage which is portable (i could buy a host). I could always use something like c++ to ping the data to another language if required but there would be a high level of concurrency in the input data. Its around 30 constant streams which i currently have single channel entry for each. The graphics for now is simply a user interface and i want to use as little effort making it as possible, but im also looking at modelling the data graphically in various ways, so the potential for 3d graphics is fairly important. Regards.

I believe it highly improbable a computer can create truely random numbers, other than its specific algorithm which can be tailored to make probability fit or to alter it such that its made to give less deterministic results yet highly spread with an ordinary deviation overall....... Essentially the only thing that can be used outside of the computers logic is time and unless you specifically verify the time for each use of randomization then even time would be constructed with a logical input hence the results are but a result of that logic and not actual randomness. I know its a strangely late update to a dead topic but working within various languages i've still found nothing that is exclusively random, deterministicly random generally. If but to mathematically define an equation for time. The monte carlo simulation brings some light to the un-probabilistic world we live, but is only brute force randomness in computing terms. I suppose you could always use a set from Pi, or Primes, but then the method by which the primes or Pi is calculated becomes evident. I can only summize that some self altering morphology be applied to a non-random series by which to seed any method..

Theres always a central power from which the layman may enact an "superficial" influence. For the central power makes the platform for you to influence. Whether its the united kingdom, european union or other institution in which the "idea" of you having any impact on a system far too embeded on the quantitive and not qualitive perspective. (Thats pretty uniform for mostly all aspects of the system) Corporations make the rules because money talks, your country is a corporation, it resembles a corporation in more ways than you may want to admit. Why does it matter if a person with an english accent tells me what i can and cannot do...i will have no impact unless i have the money to drive or influence my own means. Thats the status quo and has been since the end of WW2. None of this matters, unless you've bought into their holiday share. (Or own shares in another company). Correct me if im wrong but if i have a company with 1000 shares worth £1, if i decide i need to liquidate some of the company i could manifest 200 new shares and quantitively speaking, they are disolved just less than 1/5 of there original price. Fine 1200 shares 82p each, BUT WHAT IF AT THE EXACT SAME TIME AS MY MANIFISTATING OF THESE SHARES, THERE IS CONSTANT MARKET DEMAND FOR 400 SHARES??? Are my 1200 shares still worth 82p??? Derivitives alone amount to 4 times the entirety of physical money. I wonder what other instruments exists out there.....

Do CAD, graphics is desired but if your an electrical engineer then you could go down the CAD curcuit / logic route. App development is useful especially if you have something useful to demonstrate..