SCP-797. It's that red-looking thing. See http://ringmaster-sanctus.blogspot.com/2008/12/scp-797-hydrophobic-string.html. So today I present to you my experiments on SCP-797 as well as my experiences with it.
Since I am by no means a good writer of reports (see arr-ee), I will present the stuff I want to say all over the place, since it is a mere recollection of scattered thoughts.
So firstly, colour is important. To back up what I am going to say (actually to just set the background), I shall quote from an expert on the topic: "Each strand of SCP-797 has been either one of two colours, red or black. However, items woven of it have been observed to be black, green, red, brown, copper or gold, depending on the viewer." However, upon closer experimentation using a high-speed camera, the hair appears to be flashing between black and red at differing frequencies, depending on the situation, and sunlight (although not its constituents individually) appears to make the hydrophobic strings red for longer periods of time as compared to black. However, this extremely rapid changing of colour confuses the eye, and leaves the image open to the brain's interpretation. As a result, there have been people reported arguing over whether the same sample of SCP-797 looks red or black over the same period of time. This is suspected to be linked to an underlying psychological factor, which might lead us to uncover our evolutionary history.
"Such items are also extremely durable, withstanding temperatures upwards of 7000 C and pressures of 400 atmospheres." According to my experiments, hydrophobic string appears to melt at temperatures around 42314.15 degrees Kelvin, or close to 42041 degrees Celsius. However, this has been discovered to be an illusion, as the melting point is close to 424242 degrees Celsius. Why it might exhibit such strange behaviour is still an unknown, but a link has been proposed between that and humor on the part of the creator of the universe, although such a link is possibly inexistent.
Next, on to one of the most important properties of the hydrophobic strings: the hydrophobic-ness. Many many years ago, hopefully before you were born, Newton discovered forces that acted from a distance. Possibly he wasn't the first person, but I think he did discover that. So, whether this hydrophobic properties are able to act from a distance has remained a huge question, and as such I have created specific measurement tools to determine the strength of the repulsion across distance, and have discovered it appears to follow a trend of an inverse aeckerman's function when expressed in picometers. In short, the repulsion reduces quickly over extremely small distances, and only would succeed in keeping itself dry.
Of course, all these experiments are a special class of experiments known to many as thought experiments, and since they are created and carried out by me, their accuracy is suspect, and anybody who chooses to believe this does so at their own risk.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Geometric Progression Summation... and a block of ice
How do you sum the following numbers?:
1, 1/3, 1/9, 1/27, ... 1/ 3^inf
or even
1, 1/3.14, 1/3.14^2, ...., 1/3.14^ inf?
Answer: Go check up the GP summation formula. It's like... a/1-r (quote a certain math pro). Might be wrong because I typoed, but whatever. The actual derivation can be found online, but I don't really want to talk about it here, so... now comes the block of ice.
Imagine you have a block of ice, a cup of lemonade and a person who sort of fails at physics/math/common sense. So the cup is a perfect cylinder. The top of the liquid surface (this lemonade has no surface tension w.r.t air!) has a surface area of 1dm^2. Now this fail person lowers in a (cubical) block of ice of dimensions r dm by 1 dm by 23452345345 dm with the face that has r dm^2 surface area in first.
Soon, he has lowered the ice block exactly 1 dm into the original water level. By nearly obvious, the liquid would rise by r/1-r dm, since r dm ^3 of lemonade is displaced and the surface area as it rises is 1-r dm^2 (lemonade can't seep through ice). That is also equivalent to ( 1/ r-1 ) - 1.
However, the not-really-that-good-at-physics/math/common sense person tries to find the level the water has risen through this method. First, he takes the displaced amount of lemonade and see how far it would rise without the ice. Then he takes the volume the ice has displaced with the newly risen water level and with that new displaced volume compares how much more the water level would rise again... (not being very clear here, am I? It's ok. I fail)
Anyway, I hope it is somewhat clear that the water level will rise by r+r^2+r^3+...
=( 1/ r-1 ) - 1
and 0<=r<1. Why this bound? Because if r<0, you're possibly working with anti-matter and I don't want to talk to you, and if r>1, you're probably at odds with murderous potatoes and as such are too dangerous to be with. No really, anybody who tries to compress a solid is scary.
So... how to end off? Right. The usual statement. Whatever algebraic manipulations left are left to the reader. That's right. And if any careless mistakes have been made please inform me, but do not expect anything to change (apart from the post being torn apart).
"In exams you have to be soft because the questions are hard."
EDIT!!!: formula is like a/(1-r). Aha! ok thanks to RM-Sanctus, whoever that is.
EDIT!!!!: *tear*
1, 1/3, 1/9, 1/27, ... 1/ 3^inf
or even
1, 1/3.14, 1/3.14^2, ...., 1/3.14^ inf?
Answer: Go check up the GP summation formula. It's like... a/1-r (quote a certain math pro). Might be wrong because I typoed, but whatever. The actual derivation can be found online, but I don't really want to talk about it here, so... now comes the block of ice.
Imagine you have a block of ice, a cup of lemonade and a person who sort of fails at physics/math/common sense. So the cup is a perfect cylinder. The top of the liquid surface (this lemonade has no surface tension w.r.t air!) has a surface area of 1dm^2. Now this fail person lowers in a (cubical) block of ice of dimensions r dm by 1 dm by 23452345345 dm with the face that has r dm^2 surface area in first.
Soon, he has lowered the ice block exactly 1 dm into the original water level. By nearly obvious, the liquid would rise by r/1-r dm, since r dm ^3 of lemonade is displaced and the surface area as it rises is 1-r dm^2 (lemonade can't seep through ice). That is also equivalent to ( 1/ r-1 ) - 1.
However, the not-really-that-good-at-physics/math/common sense person tries to find the level the water has risen through this method. First, he takes the displaced amount of lemonade and see how far it would rise without the ice. Then he takes the volume the ice has displaced with the newly risen water level and with that new displaced volume compares how much more the water level would rise again... (not being very clear here, am I? It's ok. I fail)
Anyway, I hope it is somewhat clear that the water level will rise by r+r^2+r^3+...
=( 1/ r-1 ) - 1
and 0<=r<1. Why this bound? Because if r<0, you're possibly working with anti-matter and I don't want to talk to you, and if r>1, you're probably at odds with murderous potatoes and as such are too dangerous to be with. No really, anybody who tries to compress a solid is scary.
So... how to end off? Right. The usual statement. Whatever algebraic manipulations left are left to the reader. That's right. And if any careless mistakes have been made please inform me, but do not expect anything to change (apart from the post being torn apart).
"In exams you have to be soft because the questions are hard."
EDIT!!!: formula is like a/(1-r). Aha! ok thanks to RM-Sanctus, whoever that is.
EDIT!!!!: *tear*
Friday, January 22, 2010
Epicness in Chinese Chess
Ok, it's me, again, once more. Look at the title. It contains the string "Epic". Does that remind you of my awesomeness? No? I forgot I had none of that. Time to bore people to death again I guess. So, what's this epicness about? A match between me and...
Wait. Didn't we agree I had no pie in "Epic"? (Note: Epic= pie + c, and therefore d epic/ jy is equivalent to d pie / jy. Read as " The epic by the JY is equivalent to the pie by the JY. Of course, I figure that approximately 0% of my readers know who/what JY is, but my estimate may be waaaaaayyy off...) But since I get the feeling I'm going to get pulverised if I add any more of this nonsense, let's proceed to the topic!
Hey, is it true that the more nonsense I post here the less readers I have? That's cool! I should post more of this kind of sentences then.
The Epic Match (TEM) was staged between somebody whose name starts with J and somebody whose name starts with a W. Ha! What convenience to type.
TEM began after J won W twice with 2 ma odds and 2 pao odds respectively. Logic says that TEM was staged with 2 rooks advantage. Which means the starting position is as follows:
J, who gave the 2 rooks advantage, had the counterprivilege to start first, and that is theorectically super for aggroing. However, what turned out was not aggro, but just an epic match of which the epicness will probably not tarnish over the next 2 days!
This blog post has been largely cancelled and the content has been shrunk by a mere 85%. Please do not start to scream. The remaining 33.33% of this post will be a rant about the trials and tribulations of attempting this feat (and failing) as well as excuses to why there is no analysis, and also as an attempt to stop complains, I will try to play a match with the J as mentioned above in this post, and then post a rough analysis, even though it wouldn't possibly be as fun.
Part 1 of the remainder: a rant about the madness. The game was a short 79 moves long, and I only recorded 77 (my very bad for sleeping halfway thru). Hence, we might be able to see that the game was copied wrongly on my part. (missing information). I would rant more, but I have to save something for part 2: excuses. So read on iff you are that bored.
Part 2: The excuses: 1) It was past lunchtime and hence that increases the sleepiness of a person. 2) The game was very intense and energy sapping, hence making me immensely tired. 3) This is one of my first tries at copying annotations. 4) Some of the moves were made at draggy paces (sleep once again comes in as a very important factor) and some at lightning speed just to catch people off guard. Whoosh! And 3 moves were made. Or something like that. 5) Cooperativeness of the players involved. They played by the rules and did not undo moves. What can I say? I lied, I guess.
Part 3: What's to come: I have found a very nice website (playok.com) which apparently hosts games from international chess to shogi to chinese chess to many other games (even card games). So, in order to improve on game analysis (not necessarily analysis of the best moves as the coolest moves). The plan is to convince J to play a match with me. And hope I don't suffer a crushing defeat at his imba hands.
Good day.
Wait. Didn't we agree I had no pie in "Epic"? (Note: Epic= pie + c, and therefore d epic/ jy is equivalent to d pie / jy. Read as " The epic by the JY is equivalent to the pie by the JY. Of course, I figure that approximately 0% of my readers know who/what JY is, but my estimate may be waaaaaayyy off...) But since I get the feeling I'm going to get pulverised if I add any more of this nonsense, let's proceed to the topic!
Hey, is it true that the more nonsense I post here the less readers I have? That's cool! I should post more of this kind of sentences then.
The Epic Match (TEM) was staged between somebody whose name starts with J and somebody whose name starts with a W. Ha! What convenience to type.
TEM began after J won W twice with 2 ma odds and 2 pao odds respectively. Logic says that TEM was staged with 2 rooks advantage. Which means the starting position is as follows:
J, who gave the 2 rooks advantage, had the counterprivilege to start first, and that is theorectically super for aggroing. However, what turned out was not aggro, but just an epic match of which the epicness will probably not tarnish over the next 2 days!
This blog post has been largely cancelled and the content has been shrunk by a mere 85%. Please do not start to scream. The remaining 33.33% of this post will be a rant about the trials and tribulations of attempting this feat (and failing) as well as excuses to why there is no analysis, and also as an attempt to stop complains, I will try to play a match with the J as mentioned above in this post, and then post a rough analysis, even though it wouldn't possibly be as fun.
Part 1 of the remainder: a rant about the madness. The game was a short 79 moves long, and I only recorded 77 (my very bad for sleeping halfway thru). Hence, we might be able to see that the game was copied wrongly on my part. (missing information). I would rant more, but I have to save something for part 2: excuses. So read on iff you are that bored.
Part 2: The excuses: 1) It was past lunchtime and hence that increases the sleepiness of a person. 2) The game was very intense and energy sapping, hence making me immensely tired. 3) This is one of my first tries at copying annotations. 4) Some of the moves were made at draggy paces (sleep once again comes in as a very important factor) and some at lightning speed just to catch people off guard. Whoosh! And 3 moves were made. Or something like that. 5) Cooperativeness of the players involved. They played by the rules and did not undo moves. What can I say? I lied, I guess.
Part 3: What's to come: I have found a very nice website (playok.com) which apparently hosts games from international chess to shogi to chinese chess to many other games (even card games). So, in order to improve on game analysis (not necessarily analysis of the best moves as the coolest moves). The plan is to convince J to play a match with me. And hope I don't suffer a crushing defeat at his imba hands.
Good day.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Disclaimer and stuffses like that
First, let me start off this little blog post with a not-so-famous quote:
"dunno
i lazy help you write programming qns
esp when you suan me until liddat"
This hurtful message was sent to me via MSN, and I believe it to be most untrue. After much reflection, I concluded a few things.
{centralise} {bold} {underline} {times} Reflections{/underline}{bold}{justified}
{spam}
{insert random long and monotonous introduction here}
I deeply regret the fact that I did not state prior to this that any and every of the characters on my blog are totally ficticious and all resemblence to any living or dead person in the world you call real is probably unintended and unreal. If you make the connection and strongly believe in it, please note that not everybody may think the same way. This will prevent tensions from arising. Just to add to the word count and make this more obvious, Don't Link My Rants To The Real World. Moo! I meant "Rawr!".
{boring conclusion to bring word count closer to the prescribed limit}
"dunno
i lazy help you write programming qns
esp when you suan me until liddat"
This hurtful message was sent to me via MSN, and I believe it to be most untrue. After much reflection, I concluded a few things.
{centralise} {bold} {underline} {times} Reflections{/underline}{bold}{justified}
{spam}
{insert random long and monotonous introduction here}
I deeply regret the fact that I did not state prior to this that any and every of the characters on my blog are totally ficticious and all resemblence to any living or dead person in the world you call real is probably unintended and unreal. If you make the connection and strongly believe in it, please note that not everybody may think the same way. This will prevent tensions from arising. Just to add to the word count and make this more obvious, Don't Link My Rants To The Real World. Moo! I meant "Rawr!".
{boring conclusion to bring word count closer to the prescribed limit}
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Programming question (for a certain penquin and co.)
To start off, more accurate would be co. and penquin, but that sounds weird.
Anyway, this question was inspired by both a simplish math question and a comment from C_o_s, whoever that is.
So you are given 2 integers a and b, which you want to express in the form of:
x!y!....weird!/c!d!...weirder!
(Recall that 3!=6, just like pi != pie)
C_o_s quickly realises this is trivial (say a!(b-1)!/b!(a-1)!) works.
Hence, he suggests limiting all of x, y, ..., c, d, .... to primes, not necessarily distinct. He thinks for another second, and realises that the proof of existence is simply trivial. Hence, he has raised (and solved 2 seconds later) the question of how many prime factorials are needed to express a/b in the desired form.
Eg1: 2/3= 2!2!/3!, hence the answer is 3.
Eg2: 3/5=3!3!2!/5!, hence the answer is 4.
Input: a number n, stating how many prime factors a has
a number m, stating how many prime factors b has
n numbers, which are the prime factors of a
n numbers, the powers of the prime factors of a
m numbers, which are the prime factors of b
m numbers, the powers of the prime factors of b
Bounds should be around 500 primes from the first 1000 primes. Powers should be at most 100?
VINTAGE (Very important note to all generic entrants): The test cases have not been created because C_o_s is suspected to be lazy.
Anyway, this question was inspired by both a simplish math question and a comment from C_o_s, whoever that is.
So you are given 2 integers a and b, which you want to express in the form of:
x!y!....weird!/c!d!...weirder!
(Recall that 3!=6, just like pi != pie)
C_o_s quickly realises this is trivial (say a!(b-1)!/b!(a-1)!) works.
Hence, he suggests limiting all of x, y, ..., c, d, .... to primes, not necessarily distinct. He thinks for another second, and realises that the proof of existence is simply trivial. Hence, he has raised (and solved 2 seconds later) the question of how many prime factorials are needed to express a/b in the desired form.
Eg1: 2/3= 2!2!/3!, hence the answer is 3.
Eg2: 3/5=3!3!2!/5!, hence the answer is 4.
Input: a number n, stating how many prime factors a has
a number m, stating how many prime factors b has
n numbers, which are the prime factors of a
n numbers, the powers of the prime factors of a
m numbers, which are the prime factors of b
m numbers, the powers of the prime factors of b
Bounds should be around 500 primes from the first 1000 primes. Powers should be at most 100?
VINTAGE (Very important note to all generic entrants): The test cases have not been created because C_o_s is suspected to be lazy.
Friday, December 25, 2009
The conservation of fail
First, a bit of personal experience on fail. Fail is an omnipresent thing. You see it on failblog, you see it on the streets, you see it quite a lot in certain concerts (such as thumping noises from the backstage), and you see it all over the place during certain Math trainings. However, I have noticed that even though fail permeates every possible spot, the theories of fail seem to be scattered and few. As such, I will express my thoughts on fail.
1) A definition: Fail is the deviation of reality from expectations.
2) Another definition: Expectations are mostly average (ie. if people are above average* of the field, they are above expectations, and vice versa)
3) Hence, if we let the proficiencies of people in an arbitrary and absolutely random subject be a1, a2, a3, ... , an, then fail = (a1-a2)+(a1-a3)+(a1-a4)+ ... +(a1-an)+(a2-a1)+(a2-a3)+....(an-a(n-1))
That equals to 0.
Restating, the sum of fail is 0.
4) Since sum of fail is constant (at 0), there is conservation of fail.
Implications:
1) If you fail more, people will fail less.
1.1) Failing can be good for your relationships
1.2) Failing can improve the lives of others and increase overall happiness.
Note: Fail can be of different forms, eg imagined fail, perceived fail, real fail, massive fail, or just plain fail, but overall fail is conserved.
* Arithmetic mean, of course
P.S. The quality of this article fails. Are you happy now?
P.P.S. This article was written by a bored person in front of a screen in 20 minutes without any prior research whatsoever, and if any information is wrong or misleading, please contact the hotline for pizza deliveries and have a nice time with your family. Have fail!
1) A definition: Fail is the deviation of reality from expectations.
2) Another definition: Expectations are mostly average (ie. if people are above average* of the field, they are above expectations, and vice versa)
3) Hence, if we let the proficiencies of people in an arbitrary and absolutely random subject be a1, a2, a3, ... , an, then fail = (a1-a2)+(a1-a3)+(a1-a4)+ ... +(a1-an)+(a2-a1)+(a2-a3)+....(an-a(n-1))
That equals to 0.
Restating, the sum of fail is 0.
4) Since sum of fail is constant (at 0), there is conservation of fail.
Implications:
1) If you fail more, people will fail less.
1.1) Failing can be good for your relationships
1.2) Failing can improve the lives of others and increase overall happiness.
Note: Fail can be of different forms, eg imagined fail, perceived fail, real fail, massive fail, or just plain fail, but overall fail is conserved.
* Arithmetic mean, of course
P.S. The quality of this article fails. Are you happy now?
P.P.S. This article was written by a bored person in front of a screen in 20 minutes without any prior research whatsoever, and if any information is wrong or misleading, please contact the hotline for pizza deliveries and have a nice time with your family. Have fail!
Monday, November 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)