Not sure I understand. Are you agreeing that the moon landing happened but you also claim the footage is faked? Do you have any reasons to support that? You mention something about radio technology from the 1920s, but the moon landing occurred nearly 50 years later, so I hardly see how that is relevant.
Edit: I misread your comment. Thanks to @turmacar@lemmy.world for pointing it out.
Yeah, I’m gonna need more than your incredulity to convince me. Like, fun that you think it is inconceivable, but your inability to imagine has no bearing on reality. Especially when there is plenty of evidence to suggest they actually filmed and broadcasted it live. For example, the fact that a live television broadcast was a primary goal of the mission, or the fact that RCA made custom TV cameras for the Apollo program , or that the broadcast lasted for hours, or any of the analyses out there that shows the video is likely real. Also, no one suggested that the Apollo astronauts had a camera crew with them - what a bizarre thing to mention.
Why stop there? They’re just as real as any number.
Just say you recently came into some inheritance and that you are looking into investment opportunities. Then they will expect you to be out of your element, so you won’t need to try to pretend you’re someone you’re not. If they ask about the inheritance, say your grandfather made a fortune selling lumber or something boring like that.
Something has already happened and they didn’t touch my rates. I’ve been saving hundreds of dollars a year. I’ve saved well into the thousands of dollars at this point. I’m not saying the insurance companies are my friends and while I am better off using the tracker than not using it, that wasn’t even my point. My point was that the trackers all function differently and some are better than others.
It’s crazy how most of those programs work. The way my insurance handles it is way better. For example, no matter how bad you are at driving, they never raise the premiums above the normal rate, so it almost always makes sense to get the tracker from a finance perspective. (The only exception is that they will raise your rates if you drive farther in 6 months than you estimated on your initial application. The flip side is that they lower your rates if you don’t drive very much. I only drive about 1000 miles every 6 months, so my premium is really low.) They also have a Bluetooth device that stays in your car that your phone must be connected to in order for it to record trip data, and if you happen to be riding as the passenger in the car, the app has an option that allows you to clarify for each trip that you weren’t the driver. I was surprised to learn they aren’t all like that.
Imaginary numbers are no more imaginary than real numbers. The name trips a lot of people up. If you want to call imaginary numbers “dark unicorns” then you really should say the same thing of the numbers 1, 2, and all other numbers as well.
You’re thinking of topological closure. We’re talking about algebraic closure; however, complex numbers are often described as the algebraic closure of the reals, not the irrationals. Also, the imaginary numbers (complex numbers with a real part of zero) are in no meaningful way isomorphic to the real numbers. Perhaps you could say their addition groups are isomorphic or that they are isomorphic as topological spaces, but that’s about it. There isn’t an isomorphism that preserves the whole structure of the reals - the imaginary numbers aren’t even closed under multiplication, for example.
It’s supposed to be E^2 = (mc^2 )^2 + AI^2 , which implies that AI = pc, because AI is the momentum that will carry us into the future. These rookies clearly just took the square root using freshman’s dream.
Of course! I’m always excited for an opportunity to discuss these sorts of things, so I should be thanking you instead.
I’ll preface this with the fact that I am also not a physicist. I’m also simplifying a few concepts in modern physics, but the general themes should be mostly accurate.
String theory isn’t best described as a genre of physics - it really is a standalone concept. Dark matter and black holes are subjects of cosmology, while string theory is an attempt to unify quantum physics with general relativity. Could string theory be used to study black holes and dark matter? Sure, but it isn’t like physicists are studying black holes and dark matter using methods completely independent from one another and lumping both practices under the label string theory as a simple matter of categorization.
You are correct to say that string theory is an attempt at a theory of everything, but what is a theory of everything? It’s more than a collection of ideas that explain a large swath of physical phenomena wrapped into a single package tied with a nice bow. Indeed, when people propose a theory of everything, they are constructing a single mathematical model for our physical reality. It can be difficult to understand exactly what that means, so allow me to clarify.
Modern theoretical physics is not described in the same manner as classical Newtonian physics. Back then, physical phenomena were essentially described by a collection of distinct models whose effects would be combined to come to a complete prediction. For example, you’d have an equation for gravity, an equation for air resistance, an equation for electrostatic forces, and so on, each of which makes contributions at each point in time to the motion of an object. This is how it still occurs today in applied physics and engineering, but modern theoretical physics - e.g., quantum mechanics, general relativity, and string theory - is handled differently. These theories tend to have a single single equation that is meant to describe the motion of all things, which often gets labeled the principle of stationary action.
The problem that string theory attempts to solve is that the principle of stationary action that arises in the quantum mechanics and the principle of stationary action that arises in general relativity are incompatible. Both theories are meant to describe the motion of everything, but they contradict each other - quantum mechanics works to describe the motion of subatomic particles under the influence of strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces while general relativity works to describe the motion of celestial objects under the influence of gravity. String theory is a way of modeling physics that attempts to do away with this contradiction - that is, string theory is a proposal for a principle of stationary action (which is a single equation) that is meant to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity thus accurately describing the motion of objects of all sizes under the influence of all known forces. It’s in this sense that string theory is a standalone concept.
There is one caveat however. There are actually multiple versions of string theory that rely on different numbers of dimensions and slightly different formulations of the physics. You could say that this implies that string theory is a genre of physics after all, but it’s a much more narrow genre than you seemed to be suggesting in your comment. In fact, Edward Witten showed that all of these different string theories are actually separate ways of looking at a single underlying theory known as M-theory. It could possibly be said that M-theory unifies all string theories into one thus restoring my claim that string theory really is a standalone concept.
I don’t know the reason. I think not having the extra blank lines would be better, but it works just fine as is - even the post admits this much. That’s why it’s an enhancement. It’s possible for software to be functional and consistent and still have room for improvement - that doesn’t mean there is a bug.
My point is that someone made the decision for it to do that and that the software works just fine as is. It’s not a bug, it’s just a weird quirk. The fact that they made the enhancement you requested doesn’t make the old behavior buggy. Your post title said “it’s not a bug, it’s a feature!”, but the behavior you reported is not accurately classified as a bug.
It’s not a bug just because the software doesn’t conform to your personal preferences. You’re asking for what would be considered an enhancement - not a bug fix.
It depends. If the variable names are arbitrary, then a map is best. If the variable names are just x_1, x_2, x_3, …, x_n, then a list or dynamic array would be more natural. If n is constant, then a vector or static array is even better.
I don’t recall any socialized courier or food delivery services.
This is just a continuous extension of the discrete case, which is usually proven in an advanced calculus course. It says that given any finite sequence of non-negative real numbers x,
lim_n(Sum_i(x_i^n ))^(1/n)=max_i(x_i).
The proof in this case is simple. Indeed, we know that the limit is always greater than or equal to the max since each term in the sequence is greater or equal to the max. Thus, we only need an upper bound for each term in the sequence that converges to the max as well, and the proof will be completed via the squeeze theorem (sandwich theorem).
Set M=max_i(x_i) and k=dim(x). Since we know that each x_i is less than M, we have that the term in the limit is always less than (kM^n )^(1/n). The limit of this upper bound is easy to compute since if it exists (which it does by bounded monotonicity), then the limit must be equal to the limit of k^(1/n)M. This new limit is clearly M, since the limit of k^(1/n) is equal to 1. Since we have found an upper bound that converges to max_i(x_i), we have completed the proof.
Can you extend this proof to the continuous case?
For fun, prove the related theorem:
lim_n(Sum_i(x_i^(-n) ))^(-1/n)=min_i(x_i).
OCB Virgin Slims are my go-to. They’re not quite as thin as Raw Blacks, but they have less of a taste in my experience. They also don’t tear as easily and stick more reliably than Raws. They’re not nearly as common as Raw Blacks, but they’re a far superior product in my opinion. It’s sad they aren’t more popular.
2 may be the only even prime - that is it’s the only prime divisible by 2 - but 3 is the only prime divisible by 3 and 5 is the only prime divisible by 5, so I fail to see how this is unique.
Ah. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation!