/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10771017
>why does nature want to reproduce?
nature doesn't want anything.

there is a system available to us.
our continued and thorough engagement with the system is ensured because there is sufficient motivation (sensory gratification) to override factors that would otherwise cause disengagement or avoidance of the system.
so, we engage the system.
because we engage the system, we reproduce.
that's all.

>>10573092
>seriously what is with these idiots that are unironically trying to justify why she isn't exceptionably above average? they cry media and shit but in reality they are literally trying to put her down because she is a woman
1. no one is comparing her to the average
2. with what just happened with Katie Bouman wrestling a blackhole to the ground all by herself, it is understandable that people are going to be skeptical of any claims of exceptionality of a young and attractive female scientist.

>>10461900
>If you think med school is more cognitively challenging than say an aeronautical engineering degree, just lol.
becoming a family doc? maybe not
but becoming a super-specialist like a medical oncologist is more cognitively challenging

>>10419639
>Why does observation cause wave-function collapse?
It doesn't.
The problem is in your failure to properly define your terms, notably "observation".

How can I derive it using Poisson's equation? The outer region is easy, but the inner is causing me problems and I don't want to do it the "classical" way.

bump

Looking back in time we can observe that science as a whole at any given point in history is around 90% wrong. Things that were obvious, scientifically proven facts like flat earth, earth being the center of the universe, blood letting, etc. were thought of as not only sure things, but obvious to anyone studying the sciences. Odds are 90% of the science we "know" now is completely wrong. In fact, if there is any constant in science across the ages, it's that it's mostly wrong.

>No, this time we're sure! We just happened to be born in an era where everything was figured out for the final time!

There will be naive, young people like this with no perspective, but let's ignore them. What do you guys think will be revealed to be completely misunderstood in the future? I think almost all of medicine is likely wrong, especially understanding of disease. Particle physics as well, way too much conjecture. Finally environmental sciences, we can't even figure out if people are causing the world to heat up with any degree of certainly (a very basic concept), science has almost no understanding of our own environment on a macro scale.

>>7745078
P is a matrix representing a Markov chain. However P isn't diagonalizable. If we know the sequence converges it's easy. We just call [math] \lim_{k\to\infty} \mathbf{v}P^{k} = \mathbf{x} [/math] and then say:

[eqn] \lim_{k\to\infty} \mathbf{v}P^{k} = \lim_{k\to\infty} \mathbf{v}P^{k+1} \\

\lim_{k\to\infty} \mathbf{v}P^{k+1} = P \dot \lim_{k\to\infty} \mathbf{v}P^{k} \\

\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{x}P [/eqn]

Where [math]\mathbf{x}[/math] is the equilibrium vector but first we have to prove it converges it's driving me freaking nuts.