search results matching tag: Logarithm

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (6)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (30)   

'Was that disruptive?': congressman "blasts" Trump official

psycop says...

I think it kind of depends on what he means by 16,000x louder? If he's talking in decibels, then it's already a logarithmic scale, so 16,000x times higher output amplitude is about 84db? higher (which is no joke) not quite sure on the maths there. 16,000db higher is basically impossible unless we are talking a supernova or something.

That puts it at over 204db which is apparently the same volume as the Saturn V launch. Which would definitely kill you, but maybe not 8000 times over... I mean once really does the trick.

If he's talking about the energy input, it seems that's a different thing according to wikipedia, and would result in an increase of 42db, which puts it at 162db, which is about the same as a 12-guage.

He may also mean that the sound is that loud at source, but as the guy was probably trying to say as he was squirming, the distance matters. The sound energy will be dissipated over a 2D shell and so I'd guess it drops off proportional to distance squared plus some extra for loss as it goes.

All of that is in air, it's quite a different matter in the water as I think the force is transmitted more efficiently.

Either way, every 10 seconds for months? No thanks.

Warp Speed Comparison

entr0py says...

I'm just barely geeky enough to find this interesting, but here goes. The first reason is that logarithmic scales show up in science all the time, and are frequently misunderstood by layman and media, they just aren't at all intuitive.

The second is that those shows were written over decades by smart science-literate people who put in all of these careful details that totally flew over my head, it's fun to look back and see it was deeper than I knew at the time.

When Sci-fi is written with a good understanding of science and physics, it makes the fantastic parts seem more plausible because the rest checks out. The alternative way to do Sci-fi is to just say "Screw it, it's all magic!". Which works for Star Wars but isn't compelling in the same way.

cloudballoon said:

What's so intriguing about made up numbers though?

Why It's Almost Impossible to Run a Two-Hour Marathon

dannym3141 says...

At no point in the video was there an explanation that came close to answering why it is almost impossible to run a two hour marathon. Or why only a handful of people could ever come close to it.

In fact, a lot of parts seem like they were created in a rush. At one point he says that mid 60s is "nowhere near" 70 or 80. When the average is 40? Is the scale logarithmic? If so it wasn't mentioned.

I'm very grateful for the information i did learn in the video, it was a nice little bit of info about running and runners. But it fell far short of investigating the 2 hour mile or answering the questions it posed. I wish videosift will not become a home for clickbait.

P vs NP - The most important problem in Computer Science

MilkmanDan says...

I remember studying algorithm time complexities, where ideally the time complexity of an algorithm is a polynomial function -- like O(n)=n^2, or even O(n)=n^100. Most things that seem really hard at first are exponential, O(n)=2^n or whatever. *IF* somebody gets a brilliant stroke of inspiration, those exponential time complexity algorithms sometimes get tweaked to become logarithmic, like O(n)=log(n).

But almost never does a problem that seems really hard at first (exponential) get some brilliant solution that makes it jump into easy (polynomial).

I think we get so caught up in the abstract concepts and semantics that we tend to overlook what seems like common sense: some problems are simply harder than others, with no "magic bullet" solution. So, I think that P is almost certainly NOT equal to NP. But that quote around the 10 minute mark puts that in a pretty eloquent way that is easy to understand even to the layman -- a trait which is entirely too uncommon in academia.

BUT, I must admit that the few occasions when I studied an algorithm that seemed like it obviously couldn't get any better than exponential time complexity, only to be shown a brilliant outside-the-box solution that brought it down to logarithmic time complexity definitely taught me some humility. So, you never know.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Back to School

draak13 says...

I also need logarithms daily as an optical engineer.

That said, a CPU only does +,-,*,/, and approximates everything with those basic functions, so maybe he's onto something...nah...:)

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Back to School

Cop Says Obama Doesn't Follow Constitution, Neither Does He

ChaosEngine says...

Eh? I don't think @newtboy was comparing anyone to Charles Manson.

He was essentially saying "two wrongs don't make a right". Feels like a valid point to me.

If you want hyperbole, look at that bullshit Higgs quote. Let's actually ask how many police assaults are happening. Instead of making up figures (on a fucking logarithmic scale, no less), let's get some actual data. Let's find out who these police are, and let's prosecute the bastards. And then while we're at it, let's get a percentage figure on the number of decent cops doing their jobs vs assholes abusing their power.

But nah, fuck it. Far easier to just claim that any contrary evidence "no longer have any standing whatever" (by the way, it's "whatsoever") since grammar pedantry is so apparently important.

Data?? That just a fancy liberal word for story!

Lawdeedaw said:

... the comparison to Charles was a bit hyperbolic. I expect it from Bob, not you...

The Bloodhound SSC 1000 mph car cockpit revealed

Mitt Romney Booed at NAACP Event

Darkhand says...

What Chaucer said is racism yes. He should not be applying his beliefs to the entire race. He is assigned a characteristic to an entire race of people. So by definition that's racism.

TBH I'm surprised I didn't think the definition of racism was so broad. I mean how can you ever "Stereotype" someone then?

So if I say all Asians are good at Math that's not "Stereotyping" that's "Racism"?

But if I say all Hippy's love hugs that's Stereotyping?

Here's google:

-----------
noun /ˈrāˌsizəm/ 

1. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

2. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief

------------

adjective /ˌkariktəˈristik/ 

Typical of a particular person, place, or thing
- large farms are characteristic of this area

noun /ˌkariktəˈristik/ 
characteristics, plural

A feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify it
- inherited characteristics such as blood groups

The whole number or integral part of a logarithm, which gives the order of magnitude of the original number

Climate Change; Latest science update

Buttle says...

>> ^bcglorf:

Perhaps a simpler observation is in order. Go and google the instrumental temperature record. There are plenty of sources for it out there, and it's pretty well known and agreed upon. Or you can go to the NOAA graph of the same here. Again, as the speaker points out, the last 100 years has shown an approximate increase of 0.8 degrees. If anyone remembers their high school math, try and tell if the warming in the graph looks linear or polynomial? Does it average it's way up in a straight line, or a curve that gets steeper and steeper? The speaker is emphatically stating the trend WILL become a very steep curve indeed. The current instrumental record though is linear, if you extend it out to the year 2100 it ends up another 0.8 higher than current. That's of course a really poor way to project climate, you'd really want more than 100 years of data. But the clear point is the speaker blithely ignores that simple measure because it doesn't fit his argument that 4 degrees of warming in the next 100 years is likely, and everyone should stop thinking and panic asap.



In fact, if carbon dioxide absorbs radiation in the same way as everything else (obeys Beer's law), one would expect its effect to be logarithmic, which is to say, much less than linear. With a logarithmic rise, each doubling of carbon dioxide concentration will cause the same rise in temperature. Moreover, the Earth was considerably warmer than it is today in the previous interglacial period (the Eemian). If it could somehow "run away" into uncontrollable warming, how did we ever get another glacial period?

Religion (and Mormonism) is a Con--Real Time with Bill Maher

shinyblurry says...

I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.

You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.


A mind created and designed it, therefore a mind is involved, therefore it is an invalid example..

Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.

Abiogenesis is unproven because there is no evidence, it is just metaphysics. It's your faith that it is true. It is not the only coherent explanation, it is just the explanation that you have to believe because you have ruled out an intelligent designer apriori.

There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.

Here is the hypothesis

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

Here is a story about ID being published in a biology journal making predictions for cancer research

http://www.discovery.org/a/2627

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.

There is obviously a concrete difference since life doesn't come from non-life, and has never once been observed doing so. You have everything in the world to prove here. Everything in the Universe is made up of atoms, does that mean there is no difference between you and me? Is there no difference between a duck and a neutron star? You can't just say that because there are trivial similarities that they are the same thing.

And if you think like that, and you just believe we are all chemicals in motion, then you can't trust your own mind because if our mental processes are just chemical reactions, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. If our mental states have their origin in non-rational causes, rationality can't be trusted. You can't know if the rationality we have from evolutionary processes is discerning the truth of the world or not. Even Darwin realized this:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.

Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex

?
Well this is plainly false. RNA to DNA is far more probable than ROCKS to RNA. The reason it is labeled magic is because there is no proof. It doesn't mean that they are both equally likely. It is less likely by large orders of magnitude.

The magic is RNA self-replication:

http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RNA-self-replication-3.php

And if you had bothered to do any real research, you would see that the leap from soup to these complex molecules is anything but trivial..here is a list of just of basic issues...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Some quotes for you:

Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."

Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
An evolutionist currently doing biological research in Sydney, Australia

Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 = 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

Frank Salisbury,
Evolutionary biologist

Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.

If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.


I did, see above. Here is a bunch more: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640


>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do.

I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.
You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.

Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.
There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.
Given two possibilities, one being unlikely, and the other being false, I'll go with unlikely.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?

No, see above.

You said, and I quote: "if you already have DNA, you can certainly expect a cell to form."
Do you mean that DNA must already have the information required to do so? because lots of DNA does not, otherwise are you asserting that DNA is somehow "mind", which you claim would be required for that information to come into being?
>> ^shinyblurry:
The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.
So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)
Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.
You can't disprove unicorns, I can't disprove the life boundary, and we have no reason to believe either exists.
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.

Please consider this image: http://en.citizendium.org/images/thumb/f/f6/RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg/350px-RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg
The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.
Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.

Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.
If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

5.9M Earthquake Rocks Virginia East Coast USA

ChaosEngine says...

>> ^rottenseed:

Dear Haiti,

Seriously, it's 2011. 3rd world country shit ain't cute anymore
Signed,
the rest of the fucking world
PS: yours was only 7.0...nice building code, dicks>> ^Selektaa:
Dear America,
Please STFU.
Love,
Haiti



You do know that the richter scale is logarithmic, right?
The energy yield from a 5.9 is equivalent to ~43 kilo tonnes of tnt, whereas the energy yield from a 7.0 is over half a million tonnes.

Alan Grayson - What Republicans Can Do With Their Taxcuts

jwray says...

To summarize the chief factors favoring progressivity of income tax:

1. The utility of money is roughly logarithmic -- an increase from 20k to 30k in salary corresponds to a bajillion times more increase in the quality of life than an increase in salary from 1M to 1.01M.

2. Because of #1, the wealthier someone is, the lower thier marginal propensity to consume (the higher their savings rate).

3. The distribution of income among high-MPC and low-MPC people determines aggregate demand, which determines whether we have deflation or not. By raising taxes on the rich and drastically cutting taxes on everybody else, we prevent deflation that the Fed has been worried about since the crash.

World of Warcraft - Cataclysm Cinematic Intro

gwiz665 says...

@westy I see where you're coming from, but WoW is genuinely a great game. It does what it does great - it hooks you, and it is FUN. The whole point of wow is to be FUN on a logarithmic scale, first a lot, then less, then less and less. It trains you to work to get the rewards with longer and longer grinds. Everything else is filler. Every little game mechanic is geared towards being yet another hook in the player and it's all predicated on the simple idea of "well, I've gone this far, I can't stop now!" All the little things under the hood, attack tables, stat conversions and yadda yadda are just tools towards the gear grind. PVP combat is also yet another way to get players to grind more gear and also a hook in itself - competition draws out the crowds.

A lot of it depends on what kind of player you are, and the interesting thing is that WoW offers something for just about every type. The only players that are not attracted to the game are the people with a negative attitude before they try it (like I had back in the day) or people who don't like the art direction - they miss the immediate hooks and are usually lost for the game, unless there's social pressure to join with your friends.

Hehe, imagine if L. Ron Hubbard had been a game designer? What a dreadful religion he'd make then.... Zynga, I'm looking at you..

Christian logic at its finest

Chinspinigcra says...

By his logic it appears that milk being white is a greater mystery than all that is or would be god. If I was god (begin Christian logic logarithm) I might want to make sure this man understood how much he didn't understand me.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon