Search results

That seems a little dogmatic. I have considered the supernatural, but I think it's a useless concept. I agree that we currently consider space-time as one structure, and I know this is incredibly helpful realisation of reality, but being a layman in matters of time I see not reason to rule out...

Good question. An equally good question is, why not? I like the idea that there is some larger structure for which our universe is a part of, but I certainly can't argue for or against it. Has anyone?

I don't have much of an understanding of time, but surely if there were a bigger frame of reference we could ask what happened "before" the big bang? If the only frame of reference is our universe, then sure, I agree it's meaningless to ask the question.

I wasn't disputing that they discuss the same things, I was asking about their approaches.

How exactly does physics approach metaphysics? So far as I understand it they're non-intersecting.

*twitch* What the fuck?! If you want to rephrase as "physics can be considered a subset of philosophy for a sufficiently broad definition of philosophy", then we're cool.

Nice deflect :)

Do you mean to say that you don't want to spread the good news, you only do it out of servitude?

The will to protect children is pretty damn innate, and I'd wager that will, as opposed to hard scientific evidence, is the source of paedophilia laws (and likely of the majority of responses in this thread so far). Evidence of that is the fact that paedophilia has been looked down upon to some...

You don't think that maybe he was asking about an equivalent set of regulations to those for cigs and booze? Just maybe?

There is no need to preach. You will not die by not doing so. Control yourself Christians.

Sexual intercourse is the fulfilment of a desire, just like eating food is. Sure the absence of one is a little more dire than the absence of the other, but it's the same basic biological principle, and your taste for taco is no reason to hate on someone who prefers a bit of sausage, and vice versa.

He took out a factor of i2.

How did you go compared to the rest of the class with the other three topics?

I'd rather learn Euler's formula on my own than have to sit through a statistics topic *shudder*. I feel dirty just typing that word.

Ack. Why would they talk about complex numbers and not introduce the relationship between the trig and exponential functions :(

Supposing p < 2, we start by completing the square: \begin{align*}\left(x + \frac{p}{2}\right)^2 = -\left(1 - \frac{p^2}{4}\right) &\Rightarrow x = e^{i\frac{\pi + 2k\pi}{2}}\left(1 - \frac{p^2}{4}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} - \frac{p}{2} \\ &\Rightarrow |x| = 1, \text{ since } \left(\left(1 -...

Fair enough.

They were getting the wrong answer, which was presumably because they messed up their modulus and/or argument, so I showed how to find them, or they messed up their simplification of their argument, so I explicitly showed the simplified argument. In general though, allow me to quote many a...

-1 + i is in the second quadrant, so use: \theta = \arg(-1 + i) = \pi + \arg(1 - i) = \pi + \tan^{-1}(-1) = \frac{3\pi}{4}. Now, r = |-1 + i| = \sqrt{(-1)^2 + 1^2} = \sqrt{2}. Finally, (re^{i\theta})^{18} = 2^9e^{\frac{27i\pi}{2}} = 512e^{\frac{3i\pi}{2}} = -512i.