Unity+

But I think we have to assume that the mass of the paper clips does not have to fall within standard paper clip mass, so guessing in that sense wouldn't work though it would be a good logic basis. Earlier I was trying to take a stab at the problem and I find it difficult to find the mass of a paper clip without more information available. If this is a homework problem I would assume it to be solvable though. Also, I found some relationship between the oil drop experiment and this problem. It might be useful for solving it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

Well, if I know what you mean about comparing the two, I will explain the importance of using t scores with sample means and samples standard deviations. The whole point is to obtain a value that is as close to the population mean of fertilized clam eggs as possible, t scores are used to be able to adjust for the statistical difference between the sample mean and deviation and the actual population mean and standard deviation. The larger the confidence level being used the wider the confidence interval will be because with only a sample we want to have some leeway for whether the actual population mean is within the confidence interval or not. Also, increasing the sample size will decrease the width of the confidence interval because the more that are sampled the closer the sample mean gets to the actual population mean. I hope this is what you and the OP are looking for.

Well, that would depend on what you are trying to look for. If you want to determine what the approximate population mean is for the amount that are fertilized then you can use confidence levels in order to make a prediction with a certain percentage. Find a sample and test for what the experiment is looking for. Use the standard deviation equation and find the sample mean: [math]s=\sqrt{\frac{\sum x^2-\frac{(\sum x)^{2}}{n}}{n-1}}[/math] Once you find the standard deviation, find the t-score(I assume you know what those are). For example, let's say your sample size is 100 and you want a 90% confidence level then the degree of freedom(n-1) is 99 and the t score would be 1.290(calculated with http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3/calc.aspx?id=10 if you need to calculate it). Then, apply the values to the following equation: [math]EBM=t_{\frac{\alpha }{2}}\frac{s}{\sqrt{n}}[/math] This will be your error bound. Then, you will want to apply this EBM to the confidence interval. [math](\bar{x}-EBM,\bar{x}+EBM)[/math] Then, once the high and low bound are found then apply that information to give a report. From the information you have given, I would say that is the best analysis you can use.

Here is a way to deal with irrational ratios: The way to deal with irrational ratios would be to represent the ratio as a function of f(s). For example, of the ratio is pi then the following would occur. [math]C(x)_{k\times d}\begin{Bmatrix} a_{f} &b_{f} \\ u_{f} & v_{f} \end{Bmatrix}\left [ f(s)\rightarrow \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{s}4(-1)^{k+1}}{\sum_{k=1}^{s}2k-1} \right ],s(k_{p},d_{p})[/math] This means that after each step in a matrix solution the next step would occur in the sum, which is assumed in the functions in the Collatz-Matrix equation. EDIT: Here is an example for a Collatz-Matrix equation. [math]C(x)_{k\times d}\begin{Bmatrix} \frac{x}{2} &\frac{x-\sum_{k=1}^{n}4(-1)^{k+1}}{\sum_{k=1}^{n}2k-1} \\ x\sum_{k=1}^{n}2k-1+\sum_{k=1}^{n}4(-1)^{k+1} &2x \end{Bmatrix}\left [ f(s)\rightarrow \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{n}4(-1)^{k+1}}{\sum_{k=1}^{n}2k-1} \right ],s(k_{p},d_{p})[/math] Where n represents each step in the matrix solution(s). There is also a way to find the equation for the numbers specific to these set of functions.

On an off topic, I tend to keep thinking over these kind of issues and still am thinking about this one. I take issue with the same thing you pointed out and still am trying to figure out and solve the issue. It is based off the "From the lies, there exists the truth" philosophy, though it could be wrong.

I was saying that as a priest he should have just answered the way I did. But what do I know?

Well, I don't know if this was meant to be a serious answer, but let me take a nab at the question. I remember talking to someone about this(being religious and all) and I tend to take their perspective on this, which is "It doesn't matter what the name of a song is, all that matters is what it sounds like." Many people may disagree with me and I also take concern with the idea, but I relate the millions of religions that exist to "The Tower of Babel", where afterwords everyone at first seemed to understand each other under one common language, but then began to not able to understand each other and soon many languages were spoken(and this is not considering the truth of the story, but the main point). The idea is though people may believe in a different name of deity doesn't mean they don't have similar morals. Even I take concern on the philosophy and am careful with it because it can lead to certain issues, but at least consider it. Also, I would like to tell her "He/She who has not sinned, cast the first stone." If he truly were a priest, he would have said "The material world does not apply to what is not of material." Though I do not know what heaven looks like(whether or not you do believe in an afterlife), I can use the logic of a separation from the material and non-material and can assume that nothing is worn in heaven. That is the best I can answer.

A new rule that is being added is the ratio [math]\frac{d_{e}}{d_{i}}[/math] which is it cannot be an irrational number. The following is the reason why. Let us take some example, such as [math]\pi[/math]. Since it cannot be represented as a fraction, a summation can be used to use it within a Collatz-Matrix equation. [math]\frac{d_{e}}{d_{i}}=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{4(-1)^{k+1}}{2k-1}=\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{n}4(-1)^{k+1}}{\sum_{k=1}^{n}2k-1}[/math] Since an element of a matrix solution must be a real while number, the ratio must be represented as above. The bottom part of the ratio would turn out to be infinity, therefore making every element infinity. Therefore, irrational numbers cannot be used for the ratio.

I apologize for saying this, but it seems like you are trying to act like a jerk. I think this rests my case.

That not even wrong statement does not apply here because there is no fallacy within the question. The idea of a proof is that it gives a foundation stating that something is always true and most likely will remain that way with current axioms of mathematics. However, if the theorem supported by a proof working off of he axioms of mathematics is disproved by a counterexample it would mean the axioms used are I'll founded, as others have stated.

So this can be thought as Einstein and his Special and General relativity , where Special relativity only worked in certain circumstances while the General version applies to almost all circumstances(except on the quantum level as far as I know).

That is what I am getting at, yes.

How is it a poor argument? A proof may be correct within its nature of axioms but may not quite work completely because of incomplete axioms. A proof is taking the axioms and combining them to make theorems that confirm a piece of logic for something that may infinitely occur and needs a set of rules in order to establish the statement for all of what it is being applied to. Therefore, axioms would be incomplete.

But the point is the proof would be viable by all axioms of Mathematics, but yet there would be a counter example to it which means, as abj explained, the axioms would be ill founded and would need reconsideration.

I come here because most people around me either hate to discuss science or find it too boring to discuss(which is ironic because science is what runs our every day lives). I also come here to bounce off ideas and see if ideas can become more than they are. On a general note, I come here to meet like-minded people and to discuss science and philosophy. Shh Swan doesn't need to know that. I'll give you $3.50 for your stack.

I think a summary of what everyone has said is "Intelligence is the ability to hold information within memory or some other storage device while wisdom is the ability to use that information efficiently to carry out tasks that are either simple or complex."

Doing this from regular wired connection and wireless connection are no different. You would upload the video through the internet and into a FTP. If I assume you have the Google Glass I think their SDK will have examples related to this because they focused much on this feature.

There are always benefits and side effects of certain diets. Yes, processed meat is bad for your health, but not all meat is processed. This does not prove that the regular diet of a human being is worse than a vegan diet.

This is not to say that there were will be times when this happens, but what if it does happen? Would it show Mathematics to have flawed axioms? Or would it simply reveal loop holes within assumed axioms of mathematics? What other consequences would occur?

Wait, I thought this site was IP.Board hosted. Nevermind then. That is true, but I am just giving the point that the laws of the governing nation have some part in it. The administrators can do whatever they want if it is within the laws of their nation.

At first, I was about to go full out rage at this comment until I read the last few sentences. I think the reason why scientists rage at this response is because of the misconception of definitions. Though, scientists still have to consider the evidence and what its actual conclusion is. The Theory of Evolution has much evidence supporting its developments, but still needs more and more evidence in order to become more fully developed. A theory's standing solely depends on the level of evidence involved in it.

I was assuming the same when speaking of the forum as if it were a product within the United States. Since, technically, the product is hosted in the United States(if I am no mistaken), the laws of the United States apply with the forum. However, even if that is the case the members must oblige by the laws of their own nation.

Well, okay then the whole point of a troll is to annoy other people while on the border of following the rules(meaning they are not breaking the rules, but they are so close to doing so).