Don't cheat, show your method :) A 5-year-old Gauss solved this in kindergarten.∑ from 1 to 100 x
>>11976694>>11976667He was 3.
>>11976667[math]\int_{0}^{1}f(x)dx = [f(x)(x+c)]_{0}^{1} - \int_{0}^{1} f'(x)(x+c)dx.\\\int_{1}^{100}xdx = \sum\limits_{n=1}^{99}\int_{0}^{1}(x+n)dx = \sum\limits_{n=1}^{99}([(x+n)(x+c)]_{0}^{1} - \int_{0}^{1} 1(x+c)dx)\\let\ c=-1/2.\\\int_{1}^{100}xdx = 1/2 +100/2+\sum\limits_{n=2}^{99}n\\(100^2/2 - 1/2)+1/2+100/2=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{100}n [/math]
>>11977785i'bite, what is c is not -1/2
>>11977799the integral on the right doesn't vanish so you end up with a -99*const term and the 1/2 weights on the 1 and 100 are different (they still sum to 1).
>>11976667Did Gauss really solve this PDE at age 5? I find it hard to believe, even for one of the greatest geniuses of math.
We shouldn't call the coronavirus a pandemic when it's not even a single order of magnitude greater (in deaths). The IFR for coronavirus is relatively understood now and is reasonably close to that of seasonal influenzas (i.e. within a single order of magnitude). We should stop calling it a pandemic and deescalate the response. Or if these deaths are truly unacceptable, than the seasonal influenza should also be classified as a pandemic as it kills thousands each year as well.
At best it was an overreaction, and now government will not admit that it failed spectacularly over a seasonal cold.At worst it was done on purpose. Then it will continue and you will get the chinese-style social rating after the next flu.
I wish I was smart
>>11973634to feel like I did something with my life instead of wasting in on consooming
>>11976298trust me, you can waste your life as a "high iq" person too. iq is just a measurement of what could be, but you have to utilize it. educate yourself, read books, and you will find a way to reach your goal
>>11976298Baby's first existential crisis?It's ok anon don't be too hard on yourself. You don't have to be smart to contribute to humanity; we have heroes who do heroically dumb shit and still get written in the history books. What defines a person is their will to stand up for their ideals. The body rots but heroes never die. I believe in you anon :)
Don't. I'm pretty smart compared to an average person (iq 130), but inteligence has brought me nothing worthwhile
Me too anon, me too.
I believe I can fly... edition.Previous: >>11974902
If Tianwen, Perserverance and Al-Amal could talk and shitpost, what would they be screeching to each other on the Hohmann orbit on the way to Mars?
>>11979868Beirut explosion it seems.
>>11979794SLS can't lift 30 metric tons into cislunar space even on paper, anon
>>11979794>Keep in mind it was designed and started construction You know how the lunar program had a competition and that revealed several options? There simply was no competition for a big rocket so the options available were obscured by that. You don't know them.
>>11979848Amazing video, cool to see they sent people to Moon without problems only using slide rules.
>tfw bipolar disorder>tfw hypomania
>>11975117I've been awake for three days
hypomania is pretty fun until you're tired as fuck and can feel brain falling apart from lack of sleep but you still can't fall asleep at all
>>11974444Are you sure this isn't by some medications you are on?
>tfw bipolar>tfw my medication doesn’t allow for manic episodes Considering getting off of them. This is miserable. I can’t imagine never being manic again. I mean, I don’t want to be delusional or psychotic again, but being in an even mood is so boring
>tfw neurotypical but making excuses
Do pigs have a cecum?
>>11977837>Do pigs have a cecum?https://lmgtfy.com/?q=Do+pigs+have+a+cecum%3FAlso.Your mum cecum, she has to slurp it off my dick HAHAYOUR MUM SEE CUM, SHE HAS TO SLURP IT OFF MY BEENIS HAHAHAA
>>11977845You suck at shitposting.
>>11977845>Jewgle
>>11977837yes.
>>11977904for the redpilled onlyhttps://duckduckgo.com/?q=pig+gastrointestinal+tract&t=hk&ia=web
Is he right, anons?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byb3ffrBYgU
>>11977153thing he mentions in 24:22 is not only about being bright. It's about actually possessing knowledge that would allow you to make correct judgement. World today is complex and being bright is not only constraint when it comes to correct assessments of claims. There is simply not enough time for however bright person to correctly judge the truthfullness of some statements- it requires too much of a prerequisite information. Just think about how you would probably not correctly understand foreign language not familiar to you unless you are fluent in it. He is probably right within some range of general knowledge but ultimately I think that these bright people he talks about do not really exist in today's world because of what i have written above.>inb4 t. midwit
bump
>While asleep, I had an unusual experience. There was a red screen formed by flowing blood, as it were. I was observing it. Suddenly a hand began to write on the screen. I became all attention. That hand wrote a number of elliptic integrals. They stuck to my mind. As soon as I woke up, I committed them to writing.
>>11977005That's your job to make it science
>>11977011No, it’s my job to hit the report buttonIt’s the jannies job to ban you
>>11976491>Has spooky dream about numbers>Doesnt post numbersIt doesnt get much gayer than that
>>11976491Post pic
>>11976491That's cheating
Is it possible to regain cognitive function later in life. I'm nearing 30 and just feel generally dumber than when I was younger. It takes me longer to grasp ideas. I was a heavy drug user and drinker for a lot of my 20's, that couple with aging, has me feeling like a dumb ass. Are we doomed to get dumber and dumber as we get older?
>>11971231Feel the same. I am only 28 but i am a lot slower to grasp new ideas, and lost my quick wit. I used to always have the most clever joke in the room. Also seemed to lost my perception in dealing with people. I taught my self German and Italian from 20-23 and now i am struggling to pick it up again.. . but i am definitely more knowledgeable, disciplined and organized in regards to my career and personal life. Maybe i am just blackpilled/ depressed.
>>11974194aerobic exercise, benefits mediated by BDNF https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.23762
>>11971231>Is it possible to regain cognitive function later in lifeGet off of 4chan.
Learn a tier one language.Read 100 books per year. Learn an instrument of your choice.Walk a mile per day or equivalent exercise. Maintain a proper diet.
>>11972366Thank you. I’m really tired of people posting that dumb graph.
>yeah meng, everything is subjective, 2+2 could be 5 lmaooothe same people:>WTF WHY WON'T YOU EXCEPT THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
>>11976787onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/icd.2064 Sex differences in children's toy preferences: A systematic review, meta‐regression, and meta‐analysis From an early age, most children choose to play with toys typed to their own gender. In order to identify variables that predict toy preference, we conducted a meta‐analysis of observational studies of the free selection of toys by boys and girls aged between 1 and 8 years. From an initial pool of 1788 papers, 16 studies (787 boys and 813 girls) met our inclusion criteria. We found that boys played with male‐typed toys more than girls did (Cohen's d = 1.03, p < .0001) and girls played with female‐typed toys more than boys did (Cohen's d = −0.91, p < .0001). Meta‐regression showed no significant effect of presence of an adult, study context, geographical location of the study, publication date, child's age, or the inclusion of gender‐neutral toys... Findings are discussed in terms of possible contributions of environmental influences and age‐related changes in boys' and girls' toy preferences. Despite methodological variation in the choice and number of toys offered, context of testing, and age of child, the consistency in finding sex differences in children's preferences for toys typed to their own gender indicates the strength of this phenomenon and the likelihood that has a biological origin.
>>11976787www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210014491 Sex differences in chimpanzees' use of sticks as play objects resemble those of children Sex differences in children's toy play are robust and similar across cultures 1, 2. They include girls tending to play more with dolls and boys more with wheeled toys and pretend weaponry. This pattern is explained by socialization by elders and peers, male rejection of opposite-sex behavior and innate sex differences in activity preferences that are facilitated by specific toys [1]. Evidence for biological factors is controversial but mounting. For instance, girls who have been exposed to high fetal androgen levels are known to make relatively masculine toy choices [3]. Also, when presented with sex-stereotyped human toys, captive female monkeys play more with typically feminine toys, whereas male monkeys play more with masculine toys [1]. In human and nonhuman primates, juvenile females demonstrate a greater interest in infants, and males in rough-and-tumble play. This sex difference in activity preferences parallels adult behavior and may contribute to differences in toy play [1]. Here, we present the first evidence of sex differences in use of play objects in a wild primate, in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). We find that juveniles tend to carry sticks in a manner suggestive of rudimentary doll play and, as in children and captive monkeys, this behavior is more common in females than in males.
>>11977304>damage control
>>11977304>Nobody is saying this in seriousness
>>11977447I searched the exact phase op wrote and couldnt find anything
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.00601.pdfwe're close
>>11976181This proof does not hold and is invalid.
>>11976456ahahahahaha fagitlove you
>>11976181You have my attention, I am a computation autist, i both understand everything and have no idea. That being said, I'm no stranger to the idea of sniping global minima and/or maxima by rolling pennies down the vortex hole, a gradient descent. It seems plenty have something to say upon the validity of your theorem, i want to carve it a different way. In what ways is the RP wrap the set P? Does this imply that P < RP < NP?
what does this even mean?
>>11976181Seems like it isn't correct.
how to cure cancer?
>>11974089PNC-27
just do the opposite of whatever caused it :^)remove/reverse the cause...... the effect disappears
>>11974169Clearly he didn't cut it out soon enough.Also holy fuck, consequences of an innocent looking mole will never be the same, and I have a few..
>>11974089Just create perfect replication and perfect chemical balance to support that replication of course
>>11975068kek>>11975078do you?
Why do ideas like gene manipulation and transhumanism make people seethe? Is there any good reason for the scientific community not to carry out these initiatives once technology allows it? I know this is not currently feasible, but one day we could>preemptively examine and augment genes in order to eliminate genetic failures>alter or replace faulty limbs and organs with bionic equivalents who work just as well, if not better>implant machinery into people's bodies to make them stronger, smarter and able to live longerPeople with heart problems use pacemakers, epileptics often employ devices for vagus nerve stimulation in order to control their seizures, near-sighted people have corrective surgery, almost everyone went to the dentist at some point, and all of these are means of defying the shortcomings of the human condition, but why does the idea of extending this to every facet of humanity suddenly appear wrong and dystopic?
>>11976768Admittedly I posted this on /sci/ and /his/ because it's a matter of both science and philosophy, but otherwise I have no clue what or whom you're talking about. You sound like a schizo.
Some people think that it's a sin.Some people think that it will fail in a bad way.Some people think that it is good, but will never be achieved, so there is no need to hurt yourself by trying.Some people think that it is good, but only elite will use its fruits.
Technology is not worth anything,unless it improves people lives. In 21st century, people are afraid of science and technology, because it is so easy to abuse it in many different ways.
>>11976786Seethe harder you crossnigger.
>>11976143It's not the idea itself. They're both goals to strive for, it's the "groupies" of the idea that cause a lot of problems, people with the wrong idea thinking they will be immortal, fedora wearers using it as religion etc. Improving the human condition through upgrading the human is a noble goal, but those blind followers who aren't contributing just going "WAOW! NEURALINK! FILL ME UP DADDY ELON" Are just mindless trend followers. Nothing against Neuralink btw
If this horrible idea is true, what should be the impact on how we act? I think the first thing we’d need to do is sterilize all of humanity. It’s the only way to prevent the creation of more humans who will be living horrible lives.
>>11975159yes, can't forget the many worlds framework for understanding QI
>>11975142There’s a non-zero chance of surviving a shotgun to the head even if you do everything perfectly. It might be less than one percent, but that’s still not zero. Anyway, there’s nothing in MWI that says survival has to be pleasant. You definitely can survive a gunshot looking like Katie Stubblefield or even worse. Just about all the branches where you survive would turn really miserable at some point, since I have a hard time seeing how medicine can make life for 300 year olds pleasant. By attempting suicide under MWI, you’d basically be making your torment begin earlier than it otherwise would.
>>11975203true. but more importantly the interpretations that hmgive rise to this idea are just wrong. MWI doesn’t give a “privilege” to observers, that “privileged” observer thing is only present in Copenhagen and etc., so even MWI predicts you die since it doesn’t care about “observers” since in MWI they are just inanimate parts of the universal wave function
Why must we assume that every outcome of the Schrodinger Equation is equally valid even though we only ever see one outcome?Stop coping you fucking nutjobs. THE WAVE FUNCTION DOES INDEED COLLAPSE.
>>11975172There is also a 100% chance you would not do it so the theory still has not been proven wrong.
Why does this hand look like its moving?
>>11975136Because it is multiple images laid on top of each other at equal opacity for a simulated exposure.
Because a camera allows light into its sensor for some duration of time (shutter speed) and your hand moved some appreciable distance within that time.
>>11975136because drugs are forever
>>11975377actual answer
wave occupies multiple areas at the same time, unlike particle which is stationary
