Seiryuu

That's the equation as is; it was asking what the value would be. That's what I'm asking. By default on a calculator percentages are computed to be relative to 1, so I can see how 200% would turn into 2. I was under the impression that 200% + 6 is the same as 6 + 200%. Is this not the case?

I recently came across this equation on social media: At first I thought it would the answer after simplifying the equation would be and thus 12 + 6 = 18, but inputting into my calculator gets me 8 instead. Inputting the reverse () gives me my expected answer of 18. Is it an inherent property of percentages to take what's to the left?

I mean, water should be sticking to the surface of the beads, so causing it to evaporate shouldn't affect their integrity if you're heating at a reasonable temperature.

An article from 2012 posits that the incidence of homosexuality may arise from epigenetic factors. Anyone know of any more recent papers that's relevant to that branch of thought?

6.70 cm-tall cylinder floats in water with its axis perpendicular to the surface. The length of the cylinder above water is 1.70 cm. Ok, so there's 5.00 cm in height of cylinder above water. The density of water is [math]\frac{1000kg}{m^3}[/math] or [math]\frac{1g}{cm^3}[/math]. Is this even possible to do without the radius?

Have you drawn Lewis structures?

I am really, really grateful for your expertise, Charon. Thank you very much!

So if the trials were performed identically in every way, I would just take all the data and make one "big trial?" So I'm inferring that if there was something slightly different, they'd have to stay separate and my all overall conclusion would be that they're somewhat significant?

While searching for articles to reference in my discussion in my lab report, I have discovered the magic of using keywords like "photoresponses." Is there an archive where I can search for these words and their meanings like a glossary? P.S. Anyone know the word for tending to flee the center? I would use centrifugal tendencies, but that seems to be more physics related.

Really should've added "questions for you to think about" to my earlier post. :/

From the lab manual I have, the formula was [math]\chi^2=\frac{(observed-expected)^2}{expected}[/math]. I know that the expected number is the number of replicates we tested divided by the number of possible choices (i.e., 3). In my group's first trial, the replicates preferred to stay in the darker region such that our calculated chi-square value was greater than the critical chi-square of 2 degrees of freedom (5.99), whereas in our second trial, the replicates showed no significant preference to any of our choices and as such the calculated chi-square value of trial 2 was less than the critical chi-square value of 5.99. In other words: We were able to reject the null hypothesis in trial 1. We were unable to reject the null hypothesis in trial 2.

My group had recently done a choice experiment on Artemia with respect to preference of light intensity (three zones: one covered with black plastic, one covered with a fabric that's weaved so some light gets through, and one with no barrier). We performed two trials and the data we collected allowed us to both reject and fail to reject the null hypothesis using the chi-square test and the table of critical chi-square values (separately). So does that mean that there is some significance? No significance?

No matter what people say, I believe that the concept ofmorality is merely constructed by humans. I mean, non-mammalian organisms haveonly the drive to survive and are completely amoral. Mammals, however, have alimbic system which governs emotion. I hypothesize that good and evil arosefrom the pleasure principle: what makes us feel better is good and what makesus feel worse is bad. Then there is the societal aspect of things, where somesacrifices are made (we can’t always have instant gratification) for thegreater good of the community. We’re still controlled by our selfish impulses. It’s just they’vebeen redirected in ways that support mutualism so that it seems like we’re beingnice, and we are, in a way. But doing good? Furthers our own needs.

I think I understand now. So pi bonds along the same plane of two atoms will only form a pi bond between them and not any other ones? And this is why allene has a sort of "twist" in its shape; so that the carbons on the ends don't have p orbitals along the same plane?

So today I learned about sigma and pi bonds in my chemistry lecture today. As I'm doing some of the exercises, I'm stuck in the bonding of allene ([ce]C3H4[/ce]). Is it possible to have orbitals share pi bonds? If I'm doing this correctly, there should still be p orbitals on all carbons after the sp2 orbitals that don't mix with any other orbitals.