Options

Physics Gone Wild: Doggy Style

2»

Posts

  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Fencingsax wrote:
    Why are we using cubes, anyways? Wouldn't tesseracts be more appropriate?

    No, it really wouldn't.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Fencingsax wrote:
    Why are we using cubes, anyways? Wouldn't tesseracts be more appropriate?

    what about using a tube/cone, into wich 10 given atoms can only fit 1(one) way.

    There are an infinte number of ways of configuring a tube so that is true.

    It's only less arbitray than a cube, because it makes the answer easy. Yeah, you can define a space such that state of the contence is limited. Enzymes work like that.

    Sticking it in a box, justs makes it a question of granularity(what about how the quarks are?) or quantum err... space(like, quantum rotational velocity, etc... too)..




    /stonerbabble

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
    edited November 2006
    I subscribe to the idea that quantum entanglement will be our ticket out of this miserable little star system.

    Unknown User on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    Rygar wrote:
    I subscribe to the idea that quantum entanglement will be our ticket out of this miserable little star system.

    So how does that work? Just because the media likes to use the word "teleportation" when describing the phenomenon?

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    MrMister wrote:
    In fact, given a string of n digits, no matter how large n is, you will find that string in the decimal expansion of Pi.

    I'd imagine that n has to be finite, or at least denumberably infinite. So it's not really no matter how large. Right?

    There's a difference between "arbitrarily large" and infinite. But I'd imagine he means "any finite string, no matter how large".

    Also, kakos, is this just surmised, or has it actually been proven? Because it makes sense, but I wonder if we actually know it for certain.

    It's sort of surmised. It is easily provable that if Pi is "random", then you can find any n length string of digits, where n is a natural number. It is not known if Pi is "random", but it is generally believed that it is so. I use the quotes because random isn't exactly the right word, but as close as I can come with English.

    Premier kakos on
  • Options
    Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Rygar wrote:
    I subscribe to the idea that quantum entanglement will be our ticket out of this miserable little star system.

    So how does that work? Just because the media likes to use the word "teleportation" when describing the phenomenon?

    See: No-communication theorem.

    Premier kakos on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Rygar wrote:
    I subscribe to the idea that quantum entanglement will be our ticket out of this miserable little star system.

    So how does that work? Just because the media likes to use the word "teleportation" when describing the phenomenon?

    See: No-communication theorem.
    Kakos speaks the truth. But his avatar is saying "jump!"

    electricitylikesme on
Sign In or Register to comment.