cellular

Does your analysis hold true if the company never pays out dividends?

But what if there is no ROI, like high tech companies that pay no dividends?!

But "buying back stock" only temporarily creates value for the shareholder. If they don't immediately sell the stock, the price will return to what it was before they buyback, because no underling value in the company has increased (especially when dividends are never payed out, like most high tech companies that are always in the "growing" phase : looking at you FB, Goog etc).

It is interesting to think of the opposite: space fabric is shrinking, so light needs to travel "slower" so as not to break causality. I know I know, it's not really slower because the fabric is shrinking.

I bet a lot of people's haunted houses can be explained by animals (raccoons, rats, crows etc)

It's standard 1/2" drip irrigation feeder line.

I haven't ever removed the dip because otherwise, it would run through an area I don't want to see the hose.

Seems like that light would have already passed the earth by now.

This is why my gravity-fed rainwater hose does not always water my garden, which is about the same level of my cistern but travels via a dip midway (I figured the dip would remove bubbles once filled with water, but I was wrong...not sure how bubbles form: bacteria? Out gassing of warmed water).

Very frustrating.

I use a valve to bleed water near the dip by turning the valve on and off to hammer out the bubbles. Takes forever and I'd like it to be automatic (because I want my rain water cistern to overflow to my garden too. But I don't want to get rid of the bubbles by going outside in the rain, or going outside at night)

Direct3D used to have a Z-bias for a similar problem: rendering pictures hanging on walls at a far Z depth. Their whql tests even tested for it.

It was fun discovering all the corner cases while debugging drivers.

I pull the gas lever intermittently until the gal goes up but the cents don't. It takes about 5 tries, but always makes me smile that I beat the game.

Why is D different than the rest?!

"which requires an inexhaustible supply. "

But this is how you can stress the theorem. I know it will take a long time, so consider a universe where only 1000 bits of matter actually exist, then try to use the theorem and you won't have enough ink to even hold the theorem, and sets in memory. It's the same for our universe, just with more bits.

"you could simply add those sentences to your list of proof rules " Thanks, for responding. Do you mean axioms? I don't understand why that would be a solution. I'll have to read Godel again.

Did Godel say infinity is the reason too? Thanks for the response, I don't remember reading about infinity being the reason.

Off topic: Still, you'd run out of matter in the universe (that you could use for ink), before you wrote down a finite amount of numbers while ever reaching a percentage of infinity. That's how unreal infinity is in my mind.

I know the concept of infinity is useful in math, and in this incompleteness theorem, it seems like infinity is the very reason not all truths are provable. But I thought Godel's incompleteness theorem would apply to physical reality, but since infinity doesn't exist in physical reality, I'm not sure the incompleteness theorem would apply to physical reality. Hmmm

Also, didn't Godel show his theorem to be informally true by stating, "This sentence is inprovably true."? There was no infinity invoked in that sentence.

Is having an infinite amount of strings the only reason for the claim?

Infinity breaks a lot of things. Infinity isn't even real. So I'm not sure this counts. It seems like the article would have mentioned infinity if that were the reason for the claim. It seems like Enumeration fails for an infinite set too.

That just moves the problem to "which layer of abstraction should I use". Ex. If I'm developing a new material that interacts with light, should I consider light to have mass, or not? Well if it's a space sail, photos have mass, if it's not a space sail, light has no mass. But I'm not sure if this new material is a space sail....which abstraction should I use?

The article claims, "Given that some sets of strings are decidable, it stands to reason that other sets of strings are not. "

How can a string not be decidable?! Just search for the string in the set. It is either there, or not there.

What an I missing?

Ok: "this sentence is unprovably true".

I never understood why the whales needed to see outside their tank.

Cool, I'll check it out. I still have a Sony watchman. But it can't decode the new signals of course.

The foundations of our knowledge are very quickly based on assumptions/beliefs.

Light is not really understood. It's a wave and a photon, depending on what we need to solve. We incorrectly say light is a "wave", but "wave" is a verb!! I remember thinking this sounded ridiculous when I was in school. You probably did too! We should all go back and redo our assumptions like you say.

The other thing that disappointed me was the explanation of why magnets attract/repel. (Do you remember your feeling about it? Did your innocent child mind reject the explanation?)

That's crazy! What did you search for on aliexpress? Were they poly carb lenses?

They'll probably patent the whole site to be able to sue competitive sites.

I'm surprised "primordial particle system" wasn't mentioned.

My phone has radio but no television reception. Is there some legality reason why phones don't have tv tuners?

I will say that I noticed sometimes the honors courses, in college, were taught by the absolute worst professors.

I have a theory it was because, "they are honors students, they'll learn the subject regardless, and we need to put this bad teacher SOMEWHERE".

I once got out of a differential equations honors class because it was very obvious the first week, that the teacher was awful. Later, my fellow honors students told me how "lucky" I was to have switched. They were suffering through the course, while I was learning and enjoying my new class.

Yeah I think that too. Everyone else too! No way a recession is coming!!!

... ... Opps : recession. ;-) it's a paradox

Someone could rewrite Facebook with some minor tweaks and become very successful!

It seems like at least half the tech people I talk to work with AI now... no matter their field.

Or just float a thin layer on top of the water that will encapsulate ...ahem...the capsule.

Topological a torus, yes, but the area exposed to atmosphere was approximated as a sphere. Lol, we all giggled at the approximation. He drew a trunk on the sphere later!