Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [TR] US gov boffins achieve speeds FASTER THAN LIGHT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TR] US gov boffins achieve speeds FASTER THAN LIGHT - Page 7

post #61 of 101
^I don't get how that would scare them in the slightest.
post #62 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradigm84 View Post

Sounds difficult. tongue.gif
I also love the way non-Europeans say 'Math' instead of Maths biggrin.gif It would be like me saying I study Physic instead of Physics. biggrin.gif

There are plenty of words that are the same plural as they are non-plural, such as 'Deer'. smile.gif
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
post #63 of 101
^I know, I use 'Maths' not 'Math', 'Math' feels wrong to me.
post #64 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradigm84 View Post

Sounds difficult. tongue.gif
I also love the way non-Europeans say 'Math' instead of Maths biggrin.gif It would be like me saying I study Physic instead of Physics. biggrin.gif

It depends on the abbreviations. In all honestly mathmatics shouldn't be plural, while there are various "math" subjects there is no real tangible difference to say there are different forms of math. If I'm not mistaken math has one form, addition and subtraction. Everything else is a variation of, so math would be more correct than maths or mathmatics. Physics has two whole subjects that it relies on. Now we have big physics and quantum physics. Not only that, it's root word was plural. Mathematics original root word wasn't plural, it was singular....

So really, the english version is more fitting if your going by linguistics.
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #65 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by mushroomboy View Post

It depends on the abbreviations. In all honestly mathmatics shouldn't be plural, while there are various "math" subjects there is no real tangible difference to say there are different forms of math. If I'm not mistaken math has one form, addition and subtraction. Everything else is a variation of, so math would be more correct than maths or mathmatics. Physics has two whole subjects that it relies on. Now we have big physics and quantum physics. Not only that, it's root word was plural. Mathematics original root word wasn't plural, it was singular....
So really, the english version is more fitting if your going by linguistics.

Math is far from just addition and subtraction. You might be thinking of how all (or nearly all) of mathematics can be derived from set theory, but there are almost a dozen different branches of mathematics each with their own subbranches.

Physics has 5 main branches. Classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, relativity, and electromagnetism.

I'm pretty sure the reason for both disciplines having the "s" at the end is because of their original Greek names.
post #66 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradigm84 View Post

^I know, I use 'Maths' not 'Math', 'Math' feels wrong to me.

If you are going to criticize the way Americans use the English language, which is totally beside the point, what about the way that English people say "sport" instead of "sports" when there is clearly more than one sport. Nobody is perfect and no language is free from idiosyncrasies. Also "color" is clearly the superior way to spell "colour" wink.gif
post #67 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradigm84 View Post

^I don't get how that would scare them in the slightest.
Just the usual Cold War-ish propaganda, as in "Our nation has better and more technology than your country, we shalt crush thou if thou shalt attempt anything" you know. Same thing as when back in the 60's USA claimed to have a laser to shoot down any warheads that Russia would send, which was later found to be just a scare, and not a real thing. USA claimed the same thing again last year, that they have now invented a laser to shoot down any missiles targeted at USA. I called bluff that time too.
Spitfire
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K @ 4,2GHz P8Z68-V Pro 580 DirectCU II G.Skill Ripjaws X 2x4GB @1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Seagate 1TB SATA300 3,5" 7200rpm Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit Asus VG236H Razer Blackwidow 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair 950TX CoolerMaster Cosmos S Steelseries Sensei RAW Rubberized Steelseries QcK+ 
Audio
Sennheiser 360 G4ME headset 
  hide details  
Reply
Spitfire
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K @ 4,2GHz P8Z68-V Pro 580 DirectCU II G.Skill Ripjaws X 2x4GB @1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Seagate 1TB SATA300 3,5" 7200rpm Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit Asus VG236H Razer Blackwidow 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair 950TX CoolerMaster Cosmos S Steelseries Sensei RAW Rubberized Steelseries QcK+ 
Audio
Sennheiser 360 G4ME headset 
  hide details  
Reply
post #68 of 101
Well isn't space a vacuum:rolleyes:?
post #69 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sourtop View Post

Math is far from just addition and subtraction. You might be thinking of how all (or nearly all) of mathematics can be derived from set theory, but there are almost a dozen different branches of mathematics each with their own subbranches.
Physics has 5 main branches. Classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, relativity, and electromagnetism.
I'm pretty sure the reason for both disciplines having the "s" at the end is because of their original Greek names.

When you bring math down to it, what is the basic operands? Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Everything mathmatical is based off that, because that IS math. you may have different variables, but everything comes down to that. If you break it farther, multiplication is just addition. Now you might go into division, but division is just multiplication (if you change the equation) which ends up with addition AGAIN. What math doesn't use the basic principles of math, and then you think about it THAT IS MATH. You want to get real crazy, what does a computer do? It can't multiply or divide but it does every form of math imaginable (only addition and subtraction).

Now phycis, you have the standard theories like you just listed but those occupy a distinct set of rules outside of quantum physics. If you get down to it, there is only one set of physics, it's quantum physics. We just haven't really mapped that out enough to explain the non-sub atomic physics theories. That's the difference, you have a sub-atomic physics and then a "set" of physics that explains the non-sub atomic world. Two real main categories, one just branches off into the theories you listed.

http://www.ted.com/talks/aaron_o_connell_making_sense_of_a_visible_quantum_object.html

[edit] If you don't get my direction... Small phycis = quantum physics, large physics = the world around us. The world around us has several branches of physics now, but it's no longer a main category after Quantum Physics was created. Because it makes an entire NEW set of rules that none of physics in the "world around us" follow. Such as, two objects in the same place. Questions?

[edit2] Now technically Physics used to be multiple subjects, I'm just being a dick. However, math was always a single subject. When you can break an equation down to nothing but addition and subtraction, you really start to understand. Now I'm not saying it's practical, just that all math breaks down into those two operands. We use everything else as a form of short hand, which makes us create more complex theories. However they all follow the same rules if you broke them down.

[edit3] My bad, a processor only adds. it adds negative numbers for subtraction. Though since subtraction is the reverse of addition, it's essentially the same step. I still hold that addition and subtraction would be the root subject in Math. That is what Math is at it's base form, a singular function that can go both ways.
Edited by mushroomboy - 5/10/12 at 3:00am
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #70 of 101
By the sound of it you are using 'Math' in placement of where we would say 'arithmetic', 'arithmetic' being basic numerical operations that might be used every day to buy stuff or whatever.

Also you are correct in saying that addition and subtraction are the most basic operations from which everything else is derived, however in most sets of axioms of mathematics such as the axiomizations of the Peano postulates, multiplication predefined as a basic concept and not derived from addition/ subtraction. (By 'axioms' I mean those stupid little things like a*b = b*a, a+b = b+a etc)

But then again, like this thread, Maths is great at going of on wild tangents, for the sake of basic arithmetic negative numbers are nonsensical, negative numbers are only useful every day relative to another number, you can't count out a negative number of things yet everyone accepts them as being incredibly useful and almost fundamental to mathematics.

Also I wouldn't say 'Physics' is plural in the classical sense, I don't believe you can partition such a diverse subject into two simple groups. I agree that generally you can leave stuff all the way down to the Planck length in a different category to Stellar dynamics, however with topics such as the Big Bang where everything is relevant, the lines between different areas of Physics get incredibly blurred and you end up working with an incredibly complex amalgamation of everything.

Either way I apologize for derailing the train that is this thread into a canyon of irrelevant topics. offtopic.gifwheee.gif

I'm awaiting the general scientific communities reactions to this research and to see whether or not it will ever have any practical applications. thumb.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [TR] US gov boffins achieve speeds FASTER THAN LIGHT