I Wanna Be The Forums!

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Chat button has been eaten. Click here to join in the idling fun!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Kwiftee

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 85
Crap! / Re: Correlation does not indicate cause
« on: December 10, 2011, 03:02:37 am »
I was under the impression that correlation DOES imply causality, it just doesn't prove causality.

Crap! / yes, it's a maths thread.
« on: November 04, 2011, 07:12:17 pm »
A fish tank initially has 4kg of salt dissolved in 100 litres of water. It is decided that this concentration is too high for saltwater fish to be kept, and so fresh water is mixed in at 10 litres per minut, while 10 litres of the mixture is removed per minute.

If x kg/L is the concentration of the saltwater solution in the tank t seconds after the fresh water is first added, the differential equation for x would be:

A. 10dx/dt + x = 0
B. dx/dt -10x = 0
C. 100dx/dt + x = 0
D. dx/dt - 100x = 0
E. 100dx/dt - x = 0

That perfect score isn't looking likely now, Nolan. D:
I've done plenty of these types of questions for when the variable in question is mass, but trying to get my head around how it would change with concentration is proving more difficult.

Crap! / Re: Kwiftee won't be online for the next 8 days
« on: October 28, 2011, 06:41:37 pm »
hahaha nice job with that one guys

Crap! / Re: oh sweet jesus i have exams in three weeks
« on: October 17, 2011, 03:51:51 am »
Alright that makes sense I suppose, although I haven't done limits for like two years or something. Plus we never really got into the theory behind calculus. Oh well.

I'm planning on taking maths at uni next year at any rate so I guess I shall learn it then.


Crap! / Re: oh sweet jesus i have exams in three weeks
« on: October 16, 2011, 08:01:52 am »
Well, basically the question is: Why does an function that goes forever in some cases yield an infinite area, and in some cases not? In the case of the tan(x) example, you get infinity, in the case of the normal distribution... fine I'll pick a more reasonable one: y=1/x2, integrated from x=1 to infinity, you get 1.

Is there any particular difference between the functions that makes this the case? I can see mathematically that clearly the areas are different, I'm just curious as to why.

It seems like it's being determined by the rate at which the function is approaching the asymptote, but I don't know how to show that. Like, y=1/x2 approaches fast enough to not get an infinite area, while y=1/x does not.

Crap! / oh sweet jesus i have exams in three weeks
« on: October 16, 2011, 06:08:54 am »
How is that the area under the curve for a normal distribution is equal to one when it approaches both positive and negative infinity? Why wouldn't it be an infinite area?

So yeah maybe I would be able to deal with the fact that it wasn't an infinite area, but then there's other curves that approach infinity which DO have an infinite area, eg. area from 0 -> pi/2 for tan(x). So, what determines whether or not the area will be infinite or not for a given curve that asymptotes? I imagine it's something to do with how fast it's approaching it but I couldn't work it out.

i'm counting on you, mark

General Discussion! / Re: Any chem people here?
« on: September 30, 2011, 10:38:12 am »
The K+ is a spectator ion, you shouldn't include it in the net ionic equation, because ionic equations only involve ions which actually undergo a change.

For instance, for AgNO3(aq) + NaCl(aq) -> AgCl(s) + NaNO3(aq), the net ionic equation is Ag+(aq) + Cl-(aq) -> AgCl(s). Because the Na+ and the NO3- didn't do anything over the course of the reaction, they started as aqueous and finished as aqueous.

I'm not sure I should because that would leave two halogens on both sides and that makes no sense
Well, you're right in saying that having Cl- or Br- without a positive ion around makes absolutely no sense, because that implies a net negatively charged solution. But since the positive ions are utterly irrelevant to the REACTION - they're only there to balance the charge - then we don't bother putting them in the equation itself.

Crap! / Re: Dumbest person you know.
« on: September 23, 2011, 03:32:18 am »
I... I thought the post was a joke. Because it's a long response to a topic that didn't really warrant a long response? Haha... ha? okay fine :(

Also, I never thought IGN was dumb, just that he was twelve. You could argue that they're synonymous I suppose but it doesn't really justify being a dick to him. wait that's not what this topic is about well never mind.

Serious Discussion! / Re: Is changing your controls, cheating?
« on: August 09, 2011, 08:32:13 am »

Anyway I honestly don't understand the fixation with whether or not something is 'cheating'. I don't see the issue; just play the game on your own terms. If you want to give yourself the challenge (if it's a challenge) of playing without changing the controls... good for you! If you want to change the controls... also good for you! If you want to use cheat codes or modify the game code or something... um, yep! Good for you!

Cheating only really has a meaning when you're actively trying to compete, or compare with others. But if you're playing single player for your own enjoyment? It's up to you how you play.

Crap! / Re: WHAT
« on: July 12, 2011, 08:20:05 pm »
Hoorays! :D

Crap! / Re: WHAT
« on: July 11, 2011, 11:00:41 pm »
It's not the same, damnit. Just not the same. :(

Crap! / Re: WHAT
« on: July 11, 2011, 02:06:46 am »
your face is an oxymoron D:<

Crap! / WHAT
« on: July 10, 2011, 09:45:25 pm »

Serious Discussion! / Re: Women in the Army
« on: July 10, 2011, 09:03:10 pm »
But Ybbald gets a lot of what I would have said. It's the same argument I've heard for cops and firefighters. The solution is always the same. You set the bar and you do not compromise the bar for gender reasons. If a fit woman can get through the tests, good for them. If not, hey, non-combat positions are available! As for psychology this might be something what would disappear with time. I can't say that with certainty, but as women in combat positions become less novel, they would likely be handled appropriately. People used to have 14 year olds fighting in the army and no one would care or particularly go out of their way to save them over anyone else (Well, maybe a little bit more, depending on the saver), but if we seeded a bunch of 14 year olds into combat positions you know those guys would be protecting the fuck out of that kid.

Thank you thank you this was exactly what I was thinking about posting earlier but couldn't put into words.

It's absurd. Of course some women wouldn't have the strength. Some men wouldn't have the strength either. And yes, it's going to be the case that a greater percentage of men would have the strength versus the percentage of women. But that doesn't mean that the women who do have the strength shouldn't be able to serve. That's just grouping people together for the sake of it :(

Serious Discussion! / Re: Well This Explains a lot
« on: May 14, 2011, 06:52:01 pm »
I've heard people talk about this a lot, and I've noticed that people always use it to say "see, this is why you're wrong." They never use it to say "this is why I might be wrong."

Obviously no one would ever try to prove themselves wrong in an argument, but it's interesting that people only seem to believe that this applies to everyone except them. The point is that this might apply to you and you really have no way of knowing other than listening to other people and trying to keep an open mind. It worries me.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 85