studiot

I'm suprised at you Sensei. Weight. A flying object has to consider weight. Harvests are measured in hundreds or thousands of tonnes. What was that about economics? Although flying drones are not much used in farming, Some modern farmers round here are experimenting for inspection purposes instead of 'walking the land'. GPS controlled driven and driverless vehicles are being increasingly employed in the normal operations of arable farming. They are not so much use in livestock farming.

No I don't think he has considered this, which I why I wanted to raise it. +1 In any event since he has not had the courtesy to answer me I am out of here. I wish you well in your struggle.

There was no math. It was an illustration. If you'd like a better illustration, I can easily come up with one. As a child, I was often given the task of completing a series of numbers. For example, we would see: 1, 2, 3... ___ What comes next? Well, the credited response is 4. If you put 10 or 2 you don't get credit. Yet, is it impossible that the next number is 10? Hardly. We could easily be working in base-4 counting. Another possibility is 2 (the largest prime factor of n). The point is that you have been told and trained since a child to believe that the data set indicates one answer. If you refuse to believe this, you are punished. If you believe it, you are rewarded. Yet, simple carrot-and-stick games do not make a false statement true. There are always alternate explanations for any data set. I was really disappointed in this casual dismisssal of someone trying to actually discuss your topic, since you claim you want to have such a discussion. Particular seeing the substantial effort you put into squabbling with others over off topic material in preference. I took the bother of looking up the meaning of Undetermination - A new one to me. I understand and sympathise with the idea but I find the pudding over egged. I have a (paradoxically self contradictory) notion of my own that all embracing propositions are, by nature, self contradictory. Since you started with a mathematical argument, I was offering to help you get it right. Your reply was to deny your original statement. Your example is a positive one. In order to falsify the Stanford meaning of Undetermination I think it is easiest to chose a negative example, For example the proposition "There are no native flourine breathers on Pluto" For the very simple reason that, if there is any flourine on Pluto, there is not enough to breath.

Yes scientists, including some very famous ones, have covered up matters in the past and I don't doubt they will do so again in the future. But, to my knowledge, all these matters have been purely scientific, there has been no moral dimension, particularly resulting in death, and we are supposed to be discussing the question But the antimoral coverups I described have resulted in subsequent suicides and other harm. I really don't care what you call a 'church'. Enough billions in this world accept and use the definition I am employing. I did also note that other non church organisations have also been implicated. Why did you ignore this? So your continual introduction of off topic religous material in answer to all comment ammounts to preaching in my opinion.

Thank you for your reply. I didn't specify which Church; Catholic and Protestant churches have all been implicated in such undesirable behaviour, right around the globe. Of course this also applies to secular organisations, both private and state. Yes, many Scientists, some famous, have also offered wise and penetrating thoughts on other subjects such as Philosophy and Morality. But the point of my question was that I do not know of any evidence of systematic abuse and cover up on the scale that applies to Churches in general, although, of course, there have been individual rogue scientists in history - they are human after all.

Good spelling catch. Now how about a sensible response to my request for OP guidance? I apologise for my depracatory remarks directed at your opening paragraph showing a plot and some mathematical explanation. But what do you expect when you offer fundamentally incorrect mathematics to a bunch of mathematicians as the basis for a thread? The wiggly lines you have shown could never be the graph of f(x) = Asin(bx+c) + d ..............This is the most general possible sine graph. Do you actually know what function you have plotted? I see plenty of soapboxing by at least three that have frequented this forum over the last few weeks......all lacking science content...and what limited science is raised, is more than likely incorrect [see claim by Zosimus about Newton] and as usual, intestinal fortitude required in admitting to such errors of judgement is non existant. Yes, soapboxing 100% and 99% preaching Hey, Man I was referring to your opening post. (as non soapboxing)

Gosh what section of the forum was that In? Have you read the rules specific to that section? Do questions belong in Science News? I have been admonished in the past for posting similar links without sufficient explanation or summary of what it and why I was posting. But you haven't shown the entire op and thereby do beecee a disservice. Looking at it properly (for the first time) I see a summary by the OP plus a formal abstract that starts "There is no consensus" So no, I see no soapboxing, just compliance with forum rules for making an announcement (which I was not interested in so I haven't read before) But yes, If you had said there are plenty of threads which have degenerated on account of a poor opening post for one reason or another, I would agree. Perhaps this is why the mods here like the rules the way they are.

I don't think my comments were directly relevant to yours or you long sweated painstaking explanations (well done for keeping going) I was beginning an alternative viewpoint that DB might find helpful (though then again he might not but we can't know till I try). FYI It relies on the self similarity property of a part to the whole of the Reals.

Well you have noticed something important about ScienceForums then that also struck me a while after I joined. You either have to ask a specific question, followed conventionally by a question mark. or Make a single well defined proposition for debate. That the correct procedure here (ask a mod), which is, as you say not what I am used to elsewhere. In fact I remember watching a friend in court loose his case because there simply because the only option available in a court of law is the first one and he insisted on holding forth and lecturing. (Lecturing is called blogging here). So now you know why I asked for a question or a properly posed proposition.

The same reason that many fuels (including electricity) is unpopular. Not many garages supply it,, so it is easy to run out.

I don't know what you are referring to, in my post you quoted. I made several points and asked the OP one question.

And I have seen several different notations. So what? So it is far from universal, especially in British practice. So I asked what the OP means and stated the consequences of my assumption. Clearly if DB's intention was as you say then I need to revise my list of consequences, but they will leave us with essentially the same problem to overcome. I also said I can't do special characters from this keyboard. Edit I just saw that DB added words into the quote box I did not say, despite recent moderator requests and requirements not to do this. Thank you for clarifying the meaning of your brackets. So it leaves a set (0,1) which is bounded above and below but has neither a least member nor a greatest member. Do you agree with this now?

No. Unfortunately there are many mechanisms in modern society tending to increase the commute rather than decrease it.

Did you have a point to discuss or a question to ask? I could not find either in what any mediocre mathematician (such as an engineer) would immediately recognise as a kindergarten introduction to curve fitting in your opening post.

Have you seen the film 'Spotlight' ? Which is more immoral Many men of the Church abusing young boys or Those in authority who knew about it or The 'God" that allowed it to happen? What figures can you offer that Science ever worked like this?

Let us work this in terms of your example subset. I assume the interval (0,1) is meant to include the endpoints 0 and 1. Thus 0 is a minimum and 1 a maximum for this set, using your terminology. (I prefer smallest member and largest member) So if you wish to then consider the ordering of the rest of R, you now have two subsets minus infinity to 0 and 1 to plus infinity Both as open sets The first has no maximum (although it has an upper bound) and no minimum or lower bound. The second has no minimum though it has a lower bound and no maximum or upper bound. (Sorry I can't do math symbols tonight.)

Although I think this a bit off topic what if your business is selling Christmas trees. What is your VAT for July?

Have you ever tried it, particularly in a business with significantly variable financial inputs. You then have to borrow to pay the tax on business you may not have actually generated yet.

Too many confuse pomposity for formality, and not just in academia. Dear Mr Jones, "I am writing in regard to your written communication of the 4th instant"

Quadrilinear just means a function with the dependent variable depending in a linear fashion on each of four independent variables. This could be the path taken by a particle (such as the mentioned boson) with respect to position and time (x,y,z,t) or its energy as a function of position and time. So could be geometry in 4D or a 5D graph or plot. But a better presentation of the OP is needed.

Well the overt reason for this latest attack on our dealings is to save the planet. But this is immediately negated by the fact that this afternoon a well known large supermarket asked I wanted a printed receipt, and then proceeded to print out a toilet roll of coloured printed fake vouchers, which were in fact basically adverts. I have seen the security guard stop people at the exit door and demand to look at he purchases in their bags. What would they do without a receipt? When value added tax came in it became a criminal offence to not supply a VAT receipt for all transactions.Fine but then the largest companies later became able to 'negotiate' their VAT with the taxman, rather than keep proper records and pay proper amounts of tax. We also see this effect in other company taxes. On the other hand, not issuing a receipt allows many smaller (or the individual local staff of larger) companies to falsify sales records. The Italian coffee example for instance. I expect that in Italy, like here, restaurants are required to issue sequentially numbered receipts. But if the next 20 customers 'done bother with a receipt, following receipt 521, then that is 20 sales that the restaurant can avoid declaring.

The above spiel looks as though its been through the google translate mangle. Is your first language English?

I bought this bag of apples yesterday/this morning but when I opened it soem are rotten. Here is the receipt. I bought this expensive Barbour coat, but the zip broke after 3 months. Here is the receipt. Have you never been in this sort of situation?

This question was inspired by the following proposal on the BBC, to do away with receipts. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-46214514

Yes indeed +1