Xittenn

nom, nom, nom ....

Maybe you might like to look at something like the Lennard-Jones Potential and expand on it to fit your model. It can very well represent a perfect bounce where all energy is returned. I can't elaborate on this, I haven't focused enough time on the subject to do so. Is just a thought ...

I'm not so sure sketchup is appropriate... I don't think it will be that easy to do especially if you wish to pull out a solid arc. Blender sucks but not because it is so hard to use, it just isn't that great a piece of software. It will however get the job done and knowing how to use Blender will greatly help you if you routinely require such projects to be completed. There really isn't a simple solution to animation! The de facto is no matter how simple the tools are to use the final portrayal of a complex idea requires that each point of interest be elaborated on for it to exist. This requires that the individual doing the creating also do the transcribing. If it is important to you and you are truly stuck I may have an hour to put something together for you. I would need a full description of what it is you require and the result would be a series of image files and not a complete animation; a complete animation would be a significant markup in time. Just a friendly offer ....

Where [math] A [/math] is a class, [math] R [/math] a relation and x, y, z are all sets Is there another title for the concept of left and right-narrow? A search for left and right-narrow returns no relevant results other than the book that I'm reading and I wish to read other interpretations of the concepts that are along the same line; this being the concept of order and how left and right-narrow are relevant. I guess I'm missing the point on this one! I had skimmed over narrow rather quickly and had somehow taken it to be left and right restriction which it isn't. The development of order is not entirely intuitive as it is being presented in this book. This is in contrast to stating "Every nonempty set of positive integers contains a smallest member." and then proceeding with examples such as developing the Division Algorithm. I need other sources to help me put it all into perspective and finding them is problematic. What do I think this says? Well if functions are right narrow, one-one functions are both and membership is left-narrow but not right this says to me that narrow defines order as non-symmetric as is made a requirement of the text in saying that all orderings are left-narrow for simplicity, I think maybe :/

Computer Science generally covers the treatment of processing and development of algorithms. It is my opinion that if one wishes to properly learn computer sciences that one should first study the mathematics involved and during this process observe how it relates to the currently implemented architecture. For starters you might wish to learn Boolean Algebra and observe how it relates to processor logic. During this process you could develop your knowledge of Assembler Language possibly by writing a small Assembler program something that accomplishes some decisions based on stored imputed values. This is a good place to start learning how to make flow charts. The difficulty in addressing the next step is in how serious you wish to take your learning. I think the most appropriate language to learn the fundamentals of how a computer is thinking is to tackle C++. This is the best time to develop your skills in algorithms and I highly suggest learning the ins and outs of memory both Static Memory(Stack Based) and Dynamic Memory(Heap Based), allocation and Garbage Collection as well as a thorough examination of STL. There are many sites online that will recommend appropriate literature for all of learning C++ and developing with standard algorithms and how they are formulated. You may also wish to at this point cover some basic set theory and first order logic(something I wish I had done much earlier) and also maybe some category theory as well. Once you have a fairly developed understanding to build on learning how to process using matrices and differentials will open up your skills to graphics processing and mechanical based interfaced systems. I would suggest finding two/three texts at this point. One or two texts that are purely mathematical and that cover both linear algebra with matrix type mathematics and also differential mathematics as these are both fundamentally essential tools to the computer scientist. The complementary text would apply matrix mathematics to programming. These should be focused on with algorithms in mind and how one would wish to optimize intensive processes. This is an excellent time to begin utilizing a graphics pipeline as this covers all of the above and then some; either of OpenGL or DirectX will be sufficient. Ultimately if you wish to truly indulge in 'Computer Science' you must be capable of formulating a new idea, describing it in full mathematical description and creating documentation. Code samples are good but when it comes down to it the 'Computer Scientist' is not a production code monkey or software engineer and component development and optimization for you will be key! Follow through with an investigation into other programming styles including Managed Code(Java, C#), Functional Programming Languages(Haskell), Reflective Languages(Small Talk) and Parallel Programming(OpenCL) etc. ..... There is a lot to learn and it is made even more difficult in that changes are continually being implemented. I have no concept of formal education and someone who does may post in this thread; just felt like sharing. Enjoy!

Would this be the same excuse used to justify the heterosexual non-productively-mating individuals? I mean birth control techniques in their evolved and functional form are rather new on the time line but I'm sure sex addicted non-breeders have existed since the dawn of mankind. I would also put my bets on the traits of these individuals being traced to genetics also. The adage is "survival of the fittest" I don't see where this explicitly states that to be the fittest one must pro-actively breed.

Most kiddies can't build a laser I'm not too worried about it. I was also not being a wise ass! :/ I found this through google it is along the same lines baddum ching. I think the most appropriate thing to do first would be to buy a book. The Encyclopedia of Laser Physics and Technology looks good and I like John Wiley & Sons but they tend to cut the fat and just cover the topic no course work as would follow from being an 'Encyclopedia.' I also like Physical Chemistry by Thomas Engel it's what I'm studying for Physical Chemistry at the moment, it is introductory and requires basic knowledge of Calculus and Partial Differentials at most(this is a stretch it's actually rather intensive but not entirely cruel.) My baseline on this is another text from 1996 titled A Physical Chemistry by author cannot remember for the life of me which I studied also. This is a pretty broad topic and if you just want the meat and potatoes and not the actual theory I don't think anybody here is very open to comment as safety and laws are always an issue .... I'm not particularly caring myself but I respect the decisions of the mods and operators. Break down of the above equations is like so: [math] f(v) = \; frequency [/math] [math] m = \; mass [/math] [math] k = \; Boltzmann's \; constant [/math] [math] T = \; temperature [/math] [math] v = \; velocity [/math] [math] c = \; speed \; of \; light [/math] all pretty obvious stuff.... The first equation is a probability distribution and the second applies the first to line broadening of your laser. The idea here is that temperature and mass and all the other nice stuff has an effect on your output and this equation will help you define the properties of your system to achieve the desired output .... There are quite a few other equations that are just as important but this seems to be the most relevant. Fine tuning your system will, as always, require a nice clean power source if you wish to attain a respectable profile and so on and yadda yadda ..... I would say more but I wouldn't know what to say :/ Oh and dv was in the wrong place in the first equation and I fixed that ... I see from a prior post that the text was A Physical Chemistry by Joseph Noggle which was no where near as cool as the one by Engel and Reid ...

I might be missing something but this seems pretty clear: AM-QM states that: [math] \frac{x_1+x_2+x_3.....x_i}{i} \leq \sqrt[2]{ \frac{x^2_1+x^2_2+x^2_3.....x^2_i}{i} } [/math] which is like [math] \sqrt[1]{ \frac{x^1_1+x^1_2+x^1_3.....x^1_i}{i} } \leq \sqrt[2]{ \frac{x^2_1+x^2_2+x^2_3.....x^2_i}{i} } [/math] and I would assume by recursion that: [math] \sqrt[n-1]{ \frac{x^{n-1}_1+x^{n-1}_2+x^{n-1}_3.....x^{n-1}_i}{i} } \leq \sqrt[n]{ \frac{x^n_1+x^n_2+x^n_3.....x^n_i}{i} } [/math] did I miss something .... the proof for AM-QM is readily found online I'm sure ... forgive me if I stuck my foot in my mouth

I fullheartedly disagree there is nothing simple about math only portions thereof and reading into the fundamental order or disorder of a collection allows for some pretty serious awesomeness. This is a little off topic though I think and I simply wished to clarify my own stance on the matter.

[math] f(v)dv = \sqrt{\frac{m}{2 \pi k T}} e^{-\frac{mv^2}{2 k T}}dv [/math] [math] I(v)dv = \sqrt{\frac{mc^2}{2 \pi k T v^2_0}} exp \left \{ -\frac{mc^2}{2kT} \left ( \frac{{v-v_0}}{v_0} \right )^2 \right \}dv [/math]

Math IMHO is a language tool which describes collections of phenomena 'period.' Whether the phenomena is chaotic or ordered is irregardless, these both are descriptions of phenomena for which a collection of data points have been incurred and mathematically labeled as being chaotic and ordered respectively. The ability or inability of a physical embodiment of such phenomena to maintain order is irrespective of the language tool. I believe these statements to be axiomatic and subject to scrutiny and interpretation. I will now ponder this for the remainder of my lifetime rather nonsensically and continuously for no purpose whatsoever......

Wouldn't the proof for AM-QM Inequality still hold for this generalized form? Or is this what you are trying to give proof of? latex is pretty :/ [math] f(n) = \sqrt[n]{ \frac{x^n_1+x^n_2+x^n_3.....x^n_i}{i} } [/math]

I don't even understand how this is an issue! If there were or are extra terrestrials why would they be covered up? Who cares? If they are a threat, hiding them from us isn't going to accomplish much of anything unless an attack would simply mean death to all of us in which case they are doing us a favor by keeping it a secret. The only sensible reason for a government to hide such an issue would be to hide their abuse or enslavement of such a creature. The second speaker in the clip you linked mentions being rational or being irrationally skeptical but there really isn't any rational reason to be anything but skeptical about a possible cover up. The whole idea is rather silly and if it is true well I guess were in some serious trouble if they're looking to harvest our resources in which case I don't need to know, no really. Maybe they're here to suck our blood.

Are not Quark-Gluon plasmas the important and limiting factor in current laser based fusion projects?

The Good Vacuum pockets The Bad The children sitting behind you screaming in french that the plane is going to crash into the lake and that we are all going to die The Ugly Being assigned the middle seat in-between two men with serious obesity issues ..... no qualms with the men just the situation!

I just thought this was noteworthy. There was mention of using epicyclic gearing in direct coupling of electric motors to their respective wheels in electric vehicles when electric vehicles were becoming a higher priority on developers lists but I find no current mention. I guess that would just mean they each get their own automagik transmission but still, it was somehow different in that the gears had a uniquely fashioned locking mechanism that could be actuated for varying conditions :/

Well it was game over for me at gesticulate! Curious as to why this is so important? I can understand the use of fountain pens in writing poetry but if I'm going to write a five-thousand page design document the last thing I'm going to be doing is pulling out some parchment or quality paper for the job. Poetry though, most definitely or maybe when composing music, writing a letter to a loved one, when keeping a personal journal or well that's all I can think of.

I find fountain pens rather difficult to write with, is it just me? The ones I've used have either had too flat a writing tip where I can't roll it around while writing or I also find that it creates an irritating friction or scratching on the paper when I'm writing???

I really wish to get a giant whiteboard, I think it would make drawing UML diagrams and planning class hierarchic structuring of frameworks much simpler as it usually becomes cluttered on paper. I would also like to one day stereotypically ponder complex mathematical equations over the whiteboard even if only to have an excuse to drink wine and eat cheese.

Ummmm ... I chew everything except keyboards and every pen I've used stops working properly after three pages. I can't justify using anything other than a PC as my spelling and grammar are less than exceptional and I am required to write most anything several times; I try to be eco conscious. Of the few dozen keyboard styles I have used over the last twenty five years my current Gateway one is the best. I like the Gateway keyboard because it is thin, simply laid out in a standard format and the keys are easily depressed yet present a firm load to the fingers. I also do not like the ergo, but the fake boob wrist rests are fun to play with on the ones that come equipped.

Yes, with certain clusters covered in endoplasmic reticulum ....

My mind has this tendency to watch evolving markets and to peer into what the future may hold or require of us. I often see one of two scenarios both leading to the same or similar solutions. The first being the contraction of society into megacities to allow for larger free ranges, parks and conservations. The other is the pure exhaustion of land in general. Both consequently limit the amount of available land for farming. I often try to architect in my mind city towers. These city towers do not dedicate themselves to office or business infrastructures but instead focus on food production. I often think about this as rising food costs are narrowing the choice and the diversity of foods that I am able to routinely purchase for consumption. I was putting cows in these towers the other day and I realized how rather difficult this may be. Ultimately wouldn't it be more economical if an entire room was strictly dedicated to the production of milk sans cow? I mean the whole room could be engineered to act towards the accomplishment of milk bio-synthesis and not be over encumbered by the animal. People could still eat the meat yes, but in the end the meat could have its own room So if such a system was in place and the process was fine in nature and produced some of the most exquisite tasting milk known would people drink it? I would but it would have to be specialized like any other process where certain traits would have to be developed to yield certain desired results. It would have to be a thought out process that could be graded and assessed with the same qualifiers used to describe any of the more sought after delicacies. Such and such a process yields a nutty flavour and this other bio-synthesis yields a fruity one .... The raw ingredients would have to share some of the same enthusiasm as I'm sure the people would be soured to know that their milk was simply a chemical compound mixture. The thought of wood without trees came to mind soon after

I think even if some other dimension with its own set of rules did exist the concept of 1 + 1 = 2 would hold. When creating the counting system and assigning Ordinals to such devices I do believe the quark would become apparent and the reasoning would have its own law explaining the logic of the event transpiring. I could see this sort of thing happening in a system where quanta are forced to exist in odd and not even whole numbered states, but I don't see how it would eliminate the set of whole even numbers. Mathematics extends to all dimensions and is not localized so even if the rules were different in the one universe from another the rules would still be a subset of the powerset known as the 'Universal Set' which extends to all of everything.

I rather dislike these conversations because my side generally is considered distasteful. At what point does this become distasteful? I mean if it were medically possible to transplant a brain from one aged body to one brain deficient body what would be so wrong with this? Let's say it is possible to remove the brain, via some technique involving the DNA, of the specimen and follow through the development of the specimen in some elaborate incubation process whereupon the specimen is brought to some form of suitable maturity, would this still be distasteful? If so to who and why do these people always seem to have a larger say in what is right for me? It's not like the idea revolves around using the children of the poor as the specimen on account of them being poor. I am not of 'faith' and am actually more of a carnivorous devourer of life without regard and this doesn't help my case much. As I stated in the OP I do not wish to see harm done to humans and am seriously advocating against human trafficking but I do wish to see the rise of technologies which will advance my age far beyond what my expectancy is now and at the present rate of decent I'm dead meat . I have been looking into courses and certification on chemicals and bio-hazardous materials handling and also lab safety courses of which there are none in my local. I know an amount of the laws surrounding laboratory certification but extend that to research in areas like this and the laws are pretty well not established except to say, not happening. I'm surprised there hasn't been more horror stories to date. I think stuff like this needs re-evaluation by political bodies or it will simply result in a newly developed underground pandemic. I have read articles and journals suggesting that the sudden appearance of home brew splicing projects may soon be an issue, well what about this? I was looking into the courses so as to be more prepared if and when I go to school for biochem. I would also, long term, wish to develop a research facility and I feel that if I prepare now this will be more likely to happen in the future. I don't think under current law that even the lesser developments will be allowed within a facility in my lifetime. This upsets me a bit but I guess I can always keep my mind open just in case and maybe interject some opinions along the way.