Swifty
doesn't negotiate with terriers
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 33,659
Maths and a hint of sex - what's not to like?
You'd like a 71 then rynn .. it's a 69 with two people watching!!. (I'll get my coat) ...
Maths and a hint of sex - what's not to like?
..."68", I get a bj and I owe you one...You'd like a 71 then rynn .. it's a 69 with two people watching!!. (I'll get my coat) ...
Deal ! .. wait were are we going? ....."68", I get a bj and I owe you one...
(coat on leaving now...)
.. I'll tell you when we get there .. I've heard that one before ..Deal ! .. wait were are we going? ..
Replying to yourself?.. I'll tell you when we get there .. I've heard that one before ..
I thought I'd give it a go ..Replying to yourself?
Then algebra, trigonometry, differentiation and integration. I dare not go past there into that fearful zone of complex calculus. I once did but no longer do, nor likely ever will or can.Bobby Darin disagrees:
This Turing machine should run forever unless maths is wrong
By Jacob Aron
One hundred and fifty years of mathematics will be proved wrong if a new computer program stops running. Thankfully, it’s unlikely to happen, but the code behind it is testing the limits of the mathematical realm.
The program is a simulated Turing machine, a mathematical model of computation created by codebreaker Alan Turing. In 1936, he showed that the actions of any computer algorithm can be mimicked by a simple machine that reads and writes 0s and 1s on an infinitely long tape by working through a set of states, or instructions. The more complex the algorithm, the more states the machine requires.
Now Scott Aaronson and Adam Yedidia of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have created three Turing machines with behaviour that is entwined in deep questions of mathematics. This includes the proof of the 150-year-old Riemann hypothesis – thought to govern the patterns of prime numbers.
Turing’s machines have long been used to probe such questions. Their origins lie in a series of philosophical revelations that rocked the mathematical world in the 1930s. First, Kurt Gödel proved that some mathematical statements can never be proved true or false – they are undecidable. He essentially created a mathematical version of the sentence “This sentence is false”: a logical brain-twister that contradicts itself.
Gödel’s assertion has a get-out clause. If you change the base assumptions on which proofs are built – the axioms – you can render a problem decidable. But that will still leave other problems that are undecidable. That means there are no axioms that let you prove everything.
Following Gödel’s arguments, Turing proved that there must be some Turing machines whose behaviour cannot be predicted under the standard axioms – known as Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (C), or more snappily, ZFC – underpinning most of mathematics. But we didn’t know how complex they would have to be.
Now, Yedidia and Aaronson have created a Turing machine with 7918 states that has this property. And they’ve named it “Z”.
“We tried to make it concrete, and say how many states does it take before you get into this abyss of unprovability?” says Aaronson.
The pair simulated Z on a computer, but it is small enough that it could theoretically be built as a physical device, says Terence Tao of the University of California, Los Angeles. “If one were then to turn such a physical machine on, what we believe would happen would be that it would run indefinitely,” he says, assuming you ignore physical wear and tear or energy requirements.
etc...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2087845-this-turing-machine-should-run-forever-unless-maths-is-wrong/?cmpid=NLC|NSNS|2016-1905-newGLOBAL&utm_medium=NLC&utm_source=NSNS[URL='https://www.newscientist.com/article/2087845-this-turing-machine-should-run-forever-unless-maths-is-wrong/?cmpid=NLC|NSNS|2016-1905-newGLOBAL&utm_medium=NLC&utm_source=NSNS[/QUOTE'][/QUOTE[/URL]]
Any engineering program basically computes high level math. Math that would be virtually impossibly to determine long hand. But the math is nothing wrong or new and allows us to do things ( simulate things) we otherwise could never accomplish. Such as to display the actual near and far fields of radiating devices (not just hypothesize or connect the dots via measurement). Thus allowing us to greatly expand our horizon and capabilities. However the math is still the same algebra, linear algebra, trig, calculus, complex calculus developed by mathematicians long before the computer era. I don't belief anything will change this fundamental truth, however that's me.
...and now using OFDM and FEC, we can transmit data that is effectively under the noise floor. Incredible stuff.The film hails the contribution of Claude Shannon, the mathematician and electrical engineer who, in an attempt to solve the problem of noisy telephone lines, devised a way to digitise all information. Shannon singlehandedly launched the 'information age'.
Hey Jim, lay off the Alphabetti Spaghetti! Or your readership here won't know what you're on about, and will give up on you. (I don't, and I'm fairly well up with technology, etc!)And so we have Shannon's limit, for which he is very famous for. The rest just slowly evolved as the digital age came about such OFDM and DSSS, as for low noise transmission methods. BTW DSSS can be effectivity transmitted under the AWGN spectrum thru a auto correlation method.
Shannon's limit is defined as: the maximum capacity of a channel in bits/second for the given channel, but simple.
Sorry about thatHey Jim, lay off the Alphabetti Spaghetti! Or your readership here won't know what you're on about, and will give up on you. (I don't, and I'm fairly well up with technology, etc!)
And so we have Shannon's limit, for which he is very famous for. The rest just slowly evolved as the digital age came about such OFDM and DSSS, as for low noise transmission methods. BTW DSSS can be effectivity transmitted under the AWGN spectrum thru a auto correlation method.
Yes but the dialytheum crystals will never take it.
So CDMA thenAnd so we have Shannon's limit, for which he is very famous for. The rest just slowly evolved as the digital age came about such OFDM and DSSS, as for low noise transmission methods. BTW DSSS can be effectivity transmitted under the AWGN spectrum thru a auto correlation method.
Shannon's limit is defined as: the maximum capacity of a channel in bits/second for the given channel, but simple.
Careful - you'll have Fudgetusk stamping all over this thread with talk like that........That's an amazing piece of maths I've never encountered before!
The whole universe seems more and more to be a mathematical simulation, although we may never know which mind or machine is running the simulation...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37658374
This is bad science. Science should be open to peer review. "The algorithm itself is proprietary.." is just a fig-leaf to hide potentially unfair assessments from examination. It's not the maths that gets you locked up, but the people who devised the algorithm.