studiot

Will 'the internet' (as we know it) still exist in the furture or will it have been replaced ? I am assuming the question refers to the internet as we know it. So I am suggesting that the system as we know it is not capable of such a feat.

Well done, I agree. +1 One way to think of this is to look at the units of each quantity. Entropy has units of energy transfer divided by temperature. Disorder and randomness are pure numbers ie they do not have units. Uncertainty has no particular units of its own and always needs a complement ie ( 'something has to be uncertain' ) and takes on the units of the complement. The victim was murdered between 10 pm and midnight give an uncertainty of 2 hours for instance. So you are left with energy decay which has units of energy transfer divided by time, which would be the nearest.

The maximum current between any two points in any circuit flows along the path of least resistance. When an unintentional low resistance path occurs between two conductors (perhaps one being earth) a very large unintentional current can flow. This develops a large amount of heat as the heating effect is proprotional to the square of current. So (metal) conductors can get very hot and if theya re touching something flammable they can start a fire. Does this help, ask for more if you did not follow any part of it ?

Wet biology has shown the ability to evolve from single cell organisms that are definitely not 'self aware' to creatures like ourselves that (we liike to think) are. I know of no such ability of a bunch of circuit boards, or any other electro- mechanical construct. Changes have all come from human intervantion. Pentium 3s did not evolve into pentium 4s by themselves.

Thank you for telling me some stuff I didn't know. +1 This thread has some use after all. Very interesting example illustration in the cells of the body. I would suggest a correction to the use of the word 'finite' . The body has a finite though large number of cells. Even with the ability to add new ones it will never generate an infinite number. Though finite the number of cells is not specific and continually changing as cells rub off etc and new one are, as you say, generated. So I would suggest not specific or specified instead of not finite.

Out of interest I just had a quick flick through my old textbook Computability and Logic Boolos and Jeffrey Cambridge University Press. I immediately note that most of the undecidable (the correct term is not indeterminate) problems refer to synthesis, not analysis. For example in Ramsey's Theorem there is a perfectly good analytical proof of the existence of certain numbers. But when asked the synthetical question of finding a specific one for specific cases we struggle as there are only a few known sets for very small numbers. Then we have the dyadic undecidability theorem There is no effective method for deciding the validity of an arbitrary pure dyadic sentence. The book abounds with counterexamples to your claim, most of which I had forgotten because this is not really my chosen area of mathematics.

I suspect that you know full well what I am talking about. It is the same part of rational thinking that I use to reply to Physicists who try to insist that Physics must be mathematical. You are only addressing the area of analysis. There is a whole area of synthesis you are ignoring.

At last statement respectful towards Mathematics (and mathematicians). You are not aware of....... It is not appropriate in this thread as it is specific to Turing, but rational thought (including Mathematics) can be divided into two main divisions and here we are dealing with only one of them. The second is so often forgotten in statements about rational thought in Science, Mathematics Engineering and so on, especially by Scientists. I have spent a good deal of my working life dealing with that second aspect, so naturally I often draw examples from there.

So we are all agreed and 'reality' was not part of the OP so we should move on and leave it behind. This claim however presents a problem. I seem to remember you quoted Eddington's little book somewhere, perhaps in a previous thread. How do you reconcile that reference with the pages 24 to 26 of the same book and the story of the cigar ?

That's a heap more helpful than any of your other posts. +1 Now perhaps you would like to describe your idea using the ball ?

If you wish to discuss your offering there is nothing to stop you starting your own thread with a better OP

Yes that is a fair point +1, a pity you are too late to make it to the OP. The OP was rather rambling and ill defined. The only question (point) for discussion I can see is Which has already been answered.

Does this mean you are now ready to listen ? The straightforward answer is 2.

🙂

Spectacular pictures and great question. +1 (Volcanic) Horseshoe islands are uncommon but not unknown. Here is a link to another. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146164/the-island-shaped-like-a-horseshoe As you say the eruption was asymmetric. The obvious dipping of the volcanic layers down from the high side to right under water suggest this. The layering can be traced through the cleft as though a slice of cake was removed. The cleft is wider at the top than the bottom. There is evidence of several less dramatic vertical breaks segmenting the island in the photos. So how did it happen ? Well there are three conceivable mechanism I can think of. Firstly the eruption may have issued through sea bed faults. This would have accounted for the original asymmetry of the eruption. But it would not account for the clefts or large scale vertical joints. Then there may have been a series of small eruptions, perhaps many, building up the layers around a central plug. This is common in such marine islands. One day the central plug was blown clear in a massive explosion and the surrounding ring fell backwards and outwards. This would have increased the ring diameter and perhaps caused the original segmentation. This would also account for the taper in the gap. I say perhaps because jointing is also a common feature of volcanic rock which shrinks as it cools. A determination of the rock type would help identify any such activity. Jointing is most common in granitic and basaltic roc, as opposed to the tuff lavas associated with pyroclastic events. Kartazion has mentioned the third mechanism, subsequent erosion. A gentle correction here to help your English. The word is seismic not sysmic. There is little scope for erosion by the usual forces but I suspect that the lodged rock was the result of rain erosion of the upper dipping layer to the high side of the cleft, causing a large boulder to separate and lodge lower down in the narrower part of the cleft. The rounded shape suggests it is within the reach of the spray from the sea. The general rounded shape of formation itself further suggests soft rock and tropical rain erosion. So the story of this island is entirely different from the famous 'rock of ages' cleft in limestone scenary on the english Mendip hills. Here the result was from the interplay of limestone scenary with first ice and then running water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrington_Combe

Thanks. Do you like Caro Emerald's music ?

I'm guessing a "Tesla Ball" is one of these

Fair point, I wasn't implying any disrespect. So what do you make of this ? https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/chemical-substances/challenge/batch-7/1-4-dioxane.html

So what ? Mandelbrot worked on many things. Your response it a bit like saying Maxwell's theory of colour is wrong because he wrote the laws of thermodynamics.

In another thread you stated that you are not a Mathematician. Perhaps you might like to enquire of your favourite Mathematician if this claim is in fact true as there are non deterministic computations available in Mathematics that were first discovered in the 1960s by Mandelbrot and later by someone (I'm not sure whom) extending Ullam and Von Neuman's work from the 1940s.

Oh dear, I was going to say that about your answer to my last post. But now you have taken my lines. I'm glad to hear you have repented. How is that relevent to my comment that I don't know what the phrase means? That's more like what I said. But you haven't commented on the fact that no man can feel whatever a woman suffering (and it can be great suffering) feels when she has an ovarian cyst. I don't understand what you are getting at here. I must also confess my ignorance as to who Shania Twain is.

If you are not trans then you probably can't know what a trans person means by saying "I feel like a woman", though I can't say I have ever heard one use those words. But then you can't know what an ovarian cyst feels like either. So would you condemn a woman for having an ovarian cyst ?

So would you rub 1.4 dioxane on your face ?

an equation??? Here's a hint: Einstein's General Theory of Relativity starts of as 16 equations. Because of symmetries in the quantities this reduces to 10. Further relationships, described by....yes equations reduce this still further to as few as 6 plus the extra relations of course.

Yes you are correct dioxins are different but are they quite different ? Dioxanes have one (saturated) cycle formed by the links through two oxygens connecting two aliphatic chains. Dioxins have two oxygen links connecting two aromatic rings as in the diagram, and the dioxon concerned is also chlorinated. I did say So here are the formula for 1,4 dioxan and its isomers Wiki also says pretty much what I said in the other link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,4-Dioxane#Cosmetics