Acme

That particular problem is base specific and not fundamentally related to number. That is, it is an artifact of numeration. Since computers ultimately use binary -i.e. base two-, can you re-write your evaluation in that base?

That's not an acceptable response. Please give the context of your enquiry so we can formulate an appropriate response. Don't know what?

Again, it just depends on the circumstances. Why are you concerned?

Not sure what 'other built things' means, but biological material can be degraded by numerous means. Heat, bacteria, and physical breaking come to mind. Whether those things happen and how long it takes is just a matter of circumstance. Cells can remain intact for millennia when frozen, or be destroyed in moments by fire.

Possibly. It just all depends on the specifics. Not only the specific what's but the specific who's. Take Fermat's last theorem for example. Wiles' proof drew on areas of math that are relatively recent and certainly not around in Fermat's time and even when those areas were extant, no one else but Wiles put them all together to form a proof. This does not mean other proofs aren't possible by other mathematical means or that Fermat had a proof or not.

Because you said: So that is saying in effect we can find a way to do math or physics without math or physics rules. Whether you meant that or not, that is what your words communicate and it is contradictory. So since the general P vs NP problem remains unsolved* then you/we can only take each specific algorithm problem on its own merits. Even then, while a problem might be verified but not solved [yet] does not say anything about whether a solution is possible or impossible. Any approach however must still follow whatever rules the problem necessitates. No magic bullets. There are numerous specific examples in the full article I quote from below. * source: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem

No that is not what I said. I never gave a view on alcohol or other drugs, whether related to driving or not. Depends on how they write the legislation. Yes, insofar as the only crime involved is using marijuana. Laws are political issues, yes. Is it right/left divided? I don't know.

Phi brought it up in post #6; I gave the study.

That strikes me as a contradiction in terms. Can you give some example of a math problem solved without mathematics?

If you would use the quote function we all could better follow what you're quoting. My point on the evidence was that you didn't give it and you made the claim. The onus is on you at a science site to support your assertions. As to the study it was on the effects of smoking marijuana and driving and I put it up when Phi brought up the safety issue on that. Thanks Arete. I was not questioning the truth of John's assertion, only his lack of reference. Nonetheless, I point out again the study was on the effects of smoking pot and driving. Do you have comments on that as it relates to legalization?

Another sidetracking comment by John that I take issue with: First I see no supportive evidence on other psychoactive material in cannabis and while it is true that the study only measured THC levels in the marijuana, the drivers were not given just THC. The drivers smoked marijuana and drove, so whatever else the weed contained it was part-and-parcel of the driving tests. Gee; guess you told me.

OK. In the OP you said: Gödel aside, what task did you have in mind there?

I concede the technicality. However, it was clear from the context of the study I cited that the participants were smoking at most 3 joints so John's hyperbolic statements amounted to sidetracking. I am bemused that the focus has been diverted to minutiae and that the study results on the safety of driving under the influence of marijuana being "relatively small" have been left by the wayside.

Could you give more detail onto why this is true? I want to have a list of ideas and restrictions that could lead to another idea I have. ... Uhmmmm ... I ... ehrrrrr ... the uhhh ... Sorry; brain fart day. I got nuthin'.

I see condoms and diaphragms. Are you sure that isn't a birth control chart?

You should be OK with the chest in the garage because the air volume of the garage has sufficient oxygen and won't be displaced by the small volume of Co2 sublimated from the dry ice in the chest. Just don't stick your head in the chest for prolonged periods. (Warning: I'm no expert; I just pretend to be one online. )

I was not suggesting you got it from Fuller & I know it's not the same division as you have done. I was merely giving another perspective and reference on dividing a sphere that -dare I say it- you might read up on to broaden your knowledge. My bad for presuming anyone could even remotely be interested.

I saw Fuller mentioned in this thread I seem to recall, but not his Dymaxion map. Forgive me if I simply missed it. source: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map

Ideas are like rabbits. You get a couple and learn how to handle them, and pretty soon you have a dozen. ~ John Steinbeck source: >> http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/ideas_3.html#wvqpjuPzHxgeJd1v.99

We went through the B12 thing in the other thread; B12 supplements have an animal origin. No, vegetarianism is not better, disregarding that 'better' is a subjective term.

Never heard of that one. If I took it they better have a time limit if they expect me to stop though. That would be a logical fallacy. (affirming the consequent?) "Alleged axiom" is not meaningful since an axiom is self-evident and does not require proof. While Gödel's theorem does restrict completeness in a [single] internally consistent system, it does not mean that some theorem so excluded from one system can't have a solution/proof/explanation is some other system with different axioms. This still does not mean everything is possible in some -as in at least one- system.

Ich bin Deutsch nicht. Ich studierte Deutsch, als ich ein Kind war und rutschige am Wochenende. (Google übersetzen ist mein Freund.)

You mean the paper clip weight problem from that other thread? Anyway, I agree this is all speculative, but not hypothetical. If you give/specify a set of circumstances then we could examine them, but the no-holds-barred layout you present just gets us nowhere fast. If by no other basis, Gödel's incompleteness theorem does not allow a generalized function as you prescribe. Maybe if you give me some concrete examples that you have in mind I can apply the hammer & anvil to them.

It's an old wives' tale. source: >> http://www.symptomfind.com/health/does-cold-weather-make-you-sick/

Yeah I guess that would work...if killing the patient is OK.