Ask a physicist anything. (6)

[sandwiches]

I'd be more inclined to think that morals are goals and therefore cannot serve them. Moral principle is based on what you want not how you can get it.

Whether morals are goals or serve goals is irrelevant. The point is that there are always measurably better and worse ways of achieving goals. That's where science comes in.

 

[mzungu]

To the Biologists, Engineers, Designers and science loving crowd here; This documentary which is in 12 parts (make sure you see them all as some end with titles.) is a GEM!

A must see:
ENJOY
NatureTech | Watch Free Documentary Online

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Any opponent worthy of being an opponent would think highly of you for having told them of a well-considered change of mind (even on the mean streets of the internet).

It tends to come with accusations of back-sliding and goalpost-shifting. Ah, the Internet is a fickle mistress

 

[Wiccan_Child]

LoL I was thinking this was your thread with a name change haha
You can still answer my question if you want.

It all got a bit muddled when my original series of threads got closed down. I'm still going to come to these threads as if they were my own, however. The tradition of the original 'Ask a Physicist' was that anyone could ask, and anyone could answer .

hey Wiccan
How's your weekend going and Who's your favorite Physicist & Why?

My weekend went great thanks! I've come back to find myself inundated with thread updates and a delicious smattering of PMs. CF is fun

As for my favourite physicist, I'm torn between the traditional choice of Einstein:

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

And Feynmann:

"To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in."

And Sagan:

"We live in a society absolutely dependent on science and technology and yet have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. That's a clear prescription for disaster."



However, I think, if pushed, I would settle on Feynman. Fierce mathematician, tremendous bongo-drummer, and phenomenal skirt-chaser -

 

[Naraoia]

However, I think, if pushed, I would settle on Feynman. Fierce mathematician, tremendous bongo-drummer, and phenomenal skirt-chaser -

And he never got to Tuva, the poor man!

 

[oshun13]

It all got a bit muddled when my original series of threads got closed down. I'm still going to come to these threads as if they were my own, however. The tradition of the original 'Ask a Physicist' was that anyone could ask, and anyone could answer .

That's cool. I like that idea.

My weekend went great thanks! I've come back to find myself inundated with thread updates and a delicious smattering of PMs. CF is fun

ha ha Yeah CF is pretty all right. I like ncr sections the best.

As for my favourite physicist, I'm torn between the traditional choice of Einstein:

LoL that's always a great pic of Einstein. My favorite pic of him too

Do you know of any cool Atheist forums to hang out in?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's cool. I like that idea.


ha ha Yeah CF is pretty all right. I like ncr sections the best.


LoL that's always a great pic of Einstein. My favorite pic of him too

Do you know of any cool Atheist forums to hang out in?

A few, but I don't go there - it's not as much fun talking to people I already agree with

I can't give you any, though, as that would toe the rule again proselytising

 

[Chesterton]

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

What does that quote mean to you?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What does that quote mean to you?

To me it means that the world we live in is comprehensible, and that this fact is astonishing. There's no reason why we should be able to comprehend the world, yet we do - Einstein was marvelling at how we can comprehend atoms and molecules, and stars and galaxies, yet they are far removed from our everyday experiences.

I have my own ideas as to why we can comprehend these things, though, and I don't think Einstein was seriously asserting that our ability to comprehend the extraordinary is itself extraordinary. Indeed, we are crossing the brink of what we can easily comprehend; General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are counter-intuitive, and what they tell us about the fundaments of atoms and the fabric of space is very hard to intuitively visualise.

Still, it's a nice sentiment. Great scientists have always been astonished at the universe. Newton saw God in the precession of the planets, Einstein marvelled at the sheer complexity of the universe, and both Darwin and Dawkins revel in the interconnectedness of life. That we can understand any of it is, I think, amazing.

 

[super animator]

How do you find least common demonator when it comes to complex fractions?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How do you find least common demonator when it comes to complex fractions?

When trying to combine fractions, such as:

a/b + c/d

Where a, b, c, and d, are pretty much any mathematical object you like, and b and d are the denominators of our two fractions. You can multiply the top and bottom of each fraction with the denominators of the other fractions. In this case, we'd multiply a and b by the d, the denominator of the other fraction. Similarly, we multiply c and d by b, the denominator of the first fraction:

ad/bd + cb/bd

And then, you'll notice, the two denominators are exactly the same, so we can combing the fraction easily:

(ad + bc)/bd

This 'bd' is called the common denominator, because it's a denominator that is common to both fractions. But occasionally you can get a smaller common denominator, and the smallest is called the least common denominator. To find this, you must find the least common multiple of the denominators. This is the smallest number that is a multiple of both denominators. For example, the multiples of 5 are 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35..., and the multiples of 4 are 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32.... The least common multiple is therefore 20, since it's the lowest number that's in both lists. That means it's also the least common denominator when combining fractions.

So basically the least common denominator is the least common multiple of your denominators, and that in turn is the smallest number that's a multiple of all your denominators. Alternatively, you can just multiply your denominators together to get a bigger common denominator. That's what I do

 

[mzungu]

What about free will, do machines have that too? Can they ever have that?

Unless you can define precisely what is "free will" then an answer cannot be forthcoming!

 

[pgp_protector]

Ok, Math / Path Optimization Time
I've got a grid with X number of points on it

What's the best way of determining the optimal path to stop at each point at least once with minimal movement.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok, Math / Path Optimization Time
I've got a grid with X number of points on it

What's the best way of determining the optimal path to stop at each point at least once with minimal movement.

Sounds like a variation of the travelling salesman problem called the travelling tourist problem. I know that to find the Hamiltonian cycle is NP-complete, and there is no general solution - but you want to find the most efficient route that doesn't necessarily only visit each node once. You might investigate Eulerian cycles, which visit each edge once but each node multiple times - since you have no edges, you could arbitrarily create them, perhaps? That said, since your nodes are unconnected, I suspect there is a Hamiltonian cycle after all.

If you want to find it, you'll have to do it algorithmically. Exhaustive computer programs can do it, if you have the prowess.

Also, kudos on having your own webpage

 

[pgp_protector]

Sounds like a variation of the travelling salesman problem called the travelling tourist problem. I know that to find the Hamiltonian cycle is NP-complete, and there is no general solution - but you want to find the most efficient route that doesn't necessarily only visit each node once. You might investigate Eulerian cycles, which visit each edge once but each node multiple times - since you have no edges, you could arbitrarily create them, perhaps? That said, since your nodes are unconnected, I suspect there is a Hamiltonian cycle after all.

If you want to find it, you'll have to do it algorithmically. Exhaustive computer programs can do it, if you have the prowess.

Also, kudos on having your own webpage

Thanks That gave me the proper nudge (Traveling Salesman works / Traveling Tourist won't really work)
Back to coding now

Going to be fun though, I might have up to 2000 nodes though

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thanks That gave me the proper nudge (Traveling Salesman works / Traveling Tourist won't really work)
Back to coding now

Going to be fun though, I might have up to 2000 nodes though

 

[pgp_protector]

It's for a Robot I'm developing
Got to have it efficient in drilling holes in it's target
(Got its accuracy down to about 1/10 of a mil right now)

 

[Nabobalis]

It's for a Robot I'm developing
Got to have it efficient in drilling holes in it's target
(Got its accuracy down to about 1/10 of a mil right now)

Robots with drills? The new apocalypse?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's for a Robot I'm developing
Got to have it efficient in drilling holes in it's target
(Got its accuracy down to about 1/10 of a mil right now)

That's a mighty fine drilling machine - what're you drilling? Mirco black holes? Oh ho ho ho...

 

[Nabobalis]

What was your favourite module during your undergraduate degree?