A forum where anything goes. Introduce yourselves to other members of the forums, discuss how your name evolves when written out in the Game of Life, or just tell us how you found it. This is the forum for "non-academic" content.

What's the optimal way to encode the following constraint in conjunctive normal form?
Exactly 3 out of n propositional variables is allowed to be true

Is it of this kind?
At least 3 out of n propositional variables is allowed to be trueAt most 3 out of n propositional variables is allowed to be true
Still drifting.
Bullet51

Posts: 521
Joined: July 21st, 2014, 4:35 am

Are the functions 0 and e^x the only functions that are its own derivative?
And are there any functions that are its own derivative's derivative?
One big dirty Oro. Yeeeeeeeeee...

gameoflifemaniac

Posts: 722
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 11:17 am
Location: There too

Any scalar multiple of e^x (like 2*e^x) is also its own derivative. Furthermore, these are all also their derivatives' derivatives. Examples of functions that are not their own derivative but that are their derivatives' derivatives would be the hyperbolic cosine and sine.

77topaz

Posts: 1345
Joined: January 12th, 2018, 9:19 pm

More generally, functions that equal their n-th derivative will be composed of terms of the form Ce^kx, where C is a constant and k is an n-th root of unity.
LifeWiki: Like Wikipedia but with more spaceships. [citation needed]

Posts: 1858
Joined: November 8th, 2014, 8:48 pm
Location: Getting a snacker from R-Bee's

BlinkerSpawn wrote:More generally, functions that equal their n-th derivative will be composed of terms of the form Ce^kx, where C is a constant and k is an n-th root of unity.

So, that n-th root can be complex?
One big dirty Oro. Yeeeeeeeeee...

gameoflifemaniac

Posts: 722
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 11:17 am
Location: There too

gameoflifemaniac wrote:
BlinkerSpawn wrote:More generally, functions that equal their n-th derivative will be composed of terms of the form Ce^kx, where C is a constant and k is an n-th root of unity.

So, that n-th root can be complex?

Yes — z^n = 1 has exactly n solutions which lie evenly spaced around the unit circle. For example, the fourth roots of unity are 1, i, -1, and -i, which form the vertices of a square centered around 0; the third roots of unity are 1, -(1/2)+(√(3)/2)i, and -(1/2)-(√(3)/2)i, which form an equilateral triangle centered around 0.
x₁=ηx
V ⃰_η=c²√(Λη)
K=(Λu²)/2
Pₐ=1−1/(∫^∞_t₀(p(t)ˡ⁽ᵗ⁾)dt)

$$x_1=\eta x$$
$$V^*_\eta=c^2\sqrt{\Lambda\eta}$$
$$K=\frac{\Lambda u^2}2$$
$$P_a=1-\frac1{\int^\infty_{t_0}p(t)^{l(t)}dt}$$

http://conwaylife.com/wiki/A_for_all

Aidan F. Pierce

A for awesome

Posts: 1783
Joined: September 13th, 2014, 5:36 pm
Location: 0x-1

gameoflifemaniac wrote:
BlinkerSpawn wrote:More generally, functions that equal their n-th derivative will be composed of terms of the form Ce^kx, where C is a constant and k is an n-th root of unity.

So, that n-th root can be complex?

Yes, in particular cos(x) = (1/2)e^(ix)+(1/2)e^(-ix) and sin(x) = (-i/2)e^(ix)+(i/2)e^(-ix).

Macbi

Posts: 650
Joined: March 29th, 2009, 4:58 am

Macbi wrote:Yes, in particular cos(x) = (1/2)e^(ix)+(1/2)e^(-ix) and sin(x) = (-i/2)e^(ix)+(i/2)e^(-ix).

Yes, and those are examples of functions that equal their fourth derivative (but not their first, second, or third).

77topaz

Posts: 1345
Joined: January 12th, 2018, 9:19 pm

What would the tilings {1,∞} and {∞,1} look like?
Bored of using the Moore neighbourhood for everything? Introducing the Range-2 von Neumann isotropic non-totalistic rulespace!
muzik

Posts: 3300
Joined: January 28th, 2016, 2:47 pm
Location: Scotland

muzik wrote:What would the tilings {1,∞} and {∞,1} look like?

{∞,1} would be a half-plane (and not exactly a tiling, considering the {,1} means the tiling consists of a single shape)
The structure of {1,∞} is a more difficult question, because it can't be a dual tiling to {∞,1}. If you were to take, say, the edge graph of a {n,∞} tiling you would then have a pattern with an infinite number of segments (one-sided polygons) meeting at each vertex in the hyperbolic plane, but these don't constitute a tiling in and of themselves because the constituent (one-sided) polygons share no edges.
Under the strictest definition of a tiling, a {1,∞} tiling would be an infinite number of edges between two vertices (or the dual tiling to {∞,2} embedded in the Euclidean plane)
LifeWiki: Like Wikipedia but with more spaceships. [citation needed]

Posts: 1858
Joined: November 8th, 2014, 8:48 pm
Location: Getting a snacker from R-Bee's

A silly question from a silly pony---

I was looking at the slides for Harrison's recent "[i]Let's make set theory great again!/i]" talk (more out of curiosity than anything else); on page 31 (that is 10.1), he talks about, among other things,

[o]ther convenient ‘magic’ like using symmetries, transferring results via isomorphisms, homotopy equivalence or elementary equivalence (Urban’s Ultraviolence Axiom) is done by theorem proving, not the foundations.

...Urban's Ultraviolence Axiom? (Ultraviolence? Ultraviolence? Or just autocorrect gone wild?)

I imagine that "Urban" here is Christian Urban, but Google knows nothing of said axiom. Neither does Arxiv, not that I checked very thoroughly. Any pointers, tips, links...?
If you speak, your speech must be better than your silence would have been. — Arabian proverb

Catagolue: Apple Bottom • Life Wiki: Apple Bottom • Twitter: @_AppleBottom_

Proud member of the Pattern Raiders!

Apple Bottom

Posts: 1023
Joined: July 27th, 2015, 2:06 pm

Apple Bottom wrote:(Ultraviolence? Ultraviolence? Or just autocorrect gone wild?)

It may be "univalence".
Well, autocorrect has gone wild.
Still drifting.
Bullet51

Posts: 521
Joined: July 21st, 2014, 4:35 am

Bullet51 wrote:
Apple Bottom wrote:(Ultraviolence? Ultraviolence? Or just autocorrect gone wild?)

It may be "univalence".
Well, autocorrect has gone wild.

That makes sense. Thanks!
If you speak, your speech must be better than your silence would have been. — Arabian proverb

Catagolue: Apple Bottom • Life Wiki: Apple Bottom • Twitter: @_AppleBottom_

Proud member of the Pattern Raiders!

Apple Bottom

Posts: 1023
Joined: July 27th, 2015, 2:06 pm

What curve has the property that an object rolling on it has constant speed?
One big dirty Oro. Yeeeeeeeeee...

gameoflifemaniac

Posts: 722
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 11:17 am
Location: There too

gameoflifemaniac wrote:What curve has the property that an object rolling on it has constant speed?

Assuming there's no friction, simply a horizontal surface.

77topaz

Posts: 1345
Joined: January 12th, 2018, 9:19 pm

77topaz wrote:
gameoflifemaniac wrote:What curve has the property that an object rolling on it has constant speed?

Assuming there's no friction, simply a horizontal surface.

That is true as long as the object is a perfect sphere of uniform density. Other cases would require a different solution. For a given object to roll on a frictionless surface at a constant speed, you need a surface that keeps the center of mass a constant distance above the ground.
x = 81, y = 96, rule = LifeHistory58.2A$58.2A3$59.2A17.2A$59.2A17.2A3$79.2A$79.2A2$57.A$56.A$56.3A4$27.A$27.A.A$27.2A21$3.2A$3.2A2.2A$7.2A18$7.2A$7.2A2.2A$11.2A11$2A$2A2.2A$4.2A18$4.2A$4.2A2.2A$8.2A! Gamedziner Posts: 678 Joined: May 30th, 2016, 8:47 pm Location: Milky Way Galaxy: Planet Earth ### Re: Thread for Non-CA Academic Questions 77topaz wrote: gameoflifemaniac wrote:What curve has the property that an object rolling on it has constant speed? Assuming there's no friction, simply a horizontal surface. But a sphere rolling on a horizontal surface with some initial velocity will slow down. I figured out the curve will have decreasing curvature. The curve would look roughly like this: What the curve would roughly look like img.png (2.77 KiB) Viewed 5796 times But what curve is it exactly? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6EoRBvdVPQ One big dirty Oro. Yeeeeeeeeee... gameoflifemaniac Posts: 722 Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 11:17 am Location: There too ### Re: Thread for Non-CA Academic Questions gameoflifemaniac wrote:What curve has the property that an object rolling on it has constant speed? gameoflifemaniac wrote:But a sphere rolling on a horizontal surface with some initial velocity will slow down. I figured out the curve will have decreasing curvature. The curve would look roughly like this: img But what curve is it exactly? Just a wild, wild guess but... Brachistochrone? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skvnj67YGmw sorry, I don't really know this is just a wild guess If you're the person that uploaded to Sakagolue illegally, please PM me. x = 17, y = 10, rule = B3/S23b2ob2obo5b2o$11b4obo$2bob3o2bo2b3o$bo3b2o4b2o$o2bo2bob2o3b4o$bob2obo5bo2b2o$2b2o4bobo2b3o$bo3b5ob2obobo$2bo5bob2o$4bob2o2bobobo!

(Check gen 2)

Saka

Posts: 2837
Joined: June 19th, 2015, 8:50 pm
Location: In the kingdom of Sultan Hamengkubuwono X

If we ignore air-resistance, friction generally doesn't depend on velocity. So you just need a constant downward slope so that the constant friction cancels out the constant force of gravity.

EDIT: I'm being stupid. It doesn't even matter if friction does depend on speed, because the thing is going at a constant speed anyway. So even with air-resistance the answer is going to be a constant slope.
Last edited by Macbi on August 18th, 2018, 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Macbi

Posts: 650
Joined: March 29th, 2009, 4:58 am

gameoflifemaniac wrote:What curve has the property that an object rolling on it has constant speed?

gameoflifemaniac wrote:But a sphere rolling on a horizontal surface with some initial velocity will slow down. I figured out the curve will have decreasing curvature.
But what curve is it exactly?

The only reasons spheres slow down while rolling on horizontal surfaces are friction and air resistance/drag (mostly friction). You can only maintain a constant speed by rolling the sphere down a line/curve with a slope that causes the speed gained by gravity to be equal to the speed lost by friction and drag, even if that loss is zero. If the forces of gravity, friction, and drag all stay constant, maintaining a given speed requires a perfectly straight line, as changing the slope at any point changes how much energy, and therefore force, is transferred away from the sphere to the surface. A curve has changes in slope, meaning you would need changes in gravity, friction, and/or drag to keep a constant speed using one.
x = 81, y = 96, rule = LifeHistory58.2A$58.2A3$59.2A17.2A$59.2A17.2A3$79.2A$79.2A2$57.A$56.A$56.3A4$27.A$27.A.A$27.2A21$3.2A$3.2A2.2A$7.2A18$7.2A$7.2A2.2A$11.2A11$2A$2A2.2A$4.2A18$4.2A$4.2A2.2A$8.2A! Gamedziner Posts: 678 Joined: May 30th, 2016, 8:47 pm Location: Milky Way Galaxy: Planet Earth ### Re: Thread for Non-CA Academic Questions I've probably asked this before, but is there a name for the following type of geometry, and has it been studied in any detail?: Take two points anywhere on a plane, labelled A and B. If the straightest possible path from A to B must intersect itself at least once, the plane can be said to be "XXXX". Bored of using the Moore neighbourhood for everything? Introducing the Range-2 von Neumann isotropic non-totalistic rulespace! muzik Posts: 3300 Joined: January 28th, 2016, 2:47 pm Location: Scotland ### Re: Thread for Non-CA Academic Questions muzik wrote:I've probably asked this before, but is there a name for the following type of geometry, and has it been studied in any detail?: Take two points anywhere on a plane, labelled A and B. If the straightest possible path from A to B must intersect itself at least once, the plane can be said to be "XXXX". You'll have to give your definition more precisely. I can't think of anything that could have a property like this. If a path from A to B intersects itself at C, then there is a shorter path that goes from A to C and then directly to B. So the shortest path from A to B can't intersect itself. In most kinds of geometry the shortest path is considered straight. Macbi Posts: 650 Joined: March 29th, 2009, 4:58 am ### Re: Thread for Non-CA Academic Questions muzik wrote:I've probably asked this before, but is there a name for the following type of geometry, and has it been studied in any detail?: Take two points anywhere on a plane, labelled A and B. If the straightest possible path from A to B must intersect itself at least once, the plane can be said to be "XXXX". The geometry would have to be limited in directional movement, like lines tracing the paths of photons reflecting off mirrors. x = 81, y = 96, rule = LifeHistory58.2A$58.2A3$59.2A17.2A$59.2A17.2A3$79.2A$79.2A2$57.A$56.A$56.3A4$27.A$27.A.A$27.2A21$3.2A$3.2A2.2A$7.2A18$7.2A$7.2A2.2A$11.2A11$2A$2A2.2A$4.2A18$4.2A$4.2A2.2A$8.2A!
Gamedziner

Posts: 678
Joined: May 30th, 2016, 8:47 pm
Location: Milky Way Galaxy: Planet Earth

Gamedziner wrote:
muzik wrote:Take two points anywhere on a plane, labelled A and B. If the straightest possible path from A to B must intersect itself at least once, the plane can be said to be "XXXX".

The geometry would have to be limited in directional movement, like lines tracing the paths of photons reflecting off mirrors.

Or we could have negative length lines
Sarp

Posts: 182
Joined: March 1st, 2015, 1:28 pm

Is this identical to a sphere?

x = 120, y = 114, rule = B3/S2351bo$52b2o$54b2o$56bo$57bo$48bo8bo$49b2o7bo$51b2o6bo$10b97o$10bo42bo7bo44bo$10bo42bo6b2o44bo$10bo41b2o5bo46bo$10bo40bo5b2o47bo$10bo39bo5bo49bo$10bo38bo5bo50bo$10bo37bo5bo51bo$10bo42b2o51bo$10bo95bo$10bo48b2o45bo$10bo48bobo44bo$10bo48b2o45bo$10bo48bobo44bo$10bo48b2o45bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$o9bo95bo$bo8bo10b2o83bo$2bo7bo8b2o85bo$3bo6bo8bo86bo$4bo5bo8bo86bo$4bo5bo7bo87bo$5b2o3bo6bo9b3o76bo$7b2obo5bo10bobo76bo$9b2o4bo11b3o76b4o$10bo4bo11bobo76bo3bo$10b2o3bo11bobo60b2o13b2o4bo$10bobobo75bobo11bobo5b2o$10bo2b2o75b2o11bo2bo7bo$10bo79bobo8b2o3bo8bo$10bo79b2o9bo4bo8bo$10bo89bo5bo9b2o$10bo89bo5b3o8bo$10bo88bo5b2o2bo7bo$10bo87bo5bobo2bo8bo$10bo87bo4bo2bo2bo9bo$10bo86bo5bo2bo3bo$10bo85bo5bo3bo4bo$10bo95bo4bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo48b3o44bo$10bo48bobo44bo$10bo48b3o44bo$10bo48bobo44bo$10bo48bobo44bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo95bo$10bo53bo41bo$10bo52bo42bo$10bo51bo43bo$10bo51bo43bo$10bo50bo44bo$10bo49bo45bo$10bo48bo46bo$10bo48bo46bo$10bo47bo47bo$10b97o$58bo$58bo$57bo$57b2o$59bo$60bo$61b3o$64b4o\$67b2o!
Bored of using the Moore neighbourhood for everything? Introducing the Range-2 von Neumann isotropic non-totalistic rulespace!
muzik

Posts: 3300
Joined: January 28th, 2016, 2:47 pm
Location: Scotland

PreviousNext