1951. Author: opelmanta1900 | Date: Sat, 10/24/2020, 10:52AM EST | |
that was brutal... but I really wish they'd let them go another round... I think that Georgian girl is a real threat... |
1952. Author: opelmanta1900 | Date: Sat, 10/24/2020, 11:06AM EST | |
early pre-lims in the book... 2 great first round finishes...
now on to the pre-lims... Da Un Jung is up first and I expect this to be another quick one... |
1953. Author: opelmanta1900 | Date: Sat, 10/24/2020, 11:10AM EST | |
Jung is the biggest south korean I've ever seen! |
1954. Author: MACS | Date: Sat, 10/24/2020, 11:38AM EST | |
opelmanta1900 wrote:that was brutal... but I really wish they'd let them go another round... I think that Georgian girl is a real threat... Dammit! I missed the girl on girl action?? Story of my life... |
1955. Author: opelmanta1900 | Date: Sat, 10/24/2020, 11:41AM EST | |
ya, step-in elbow connected with the bridge of the nose... sliced it clean open... girl wanted to fight still though... |
1956. Author: MACS | Date: Sat, 10/24/2020, 1:25PM EST | |
I got booted off the site while I went to get a haircut... can't get back on.
Fudge.
Back on, but it keeps dropping me. Never had that issue before... |
1957. Author: MACS | Date: Sat, 10/24/2020, 5:27PM EST | |
Just me and Corey right now... and we both drinkin'. |
1958. Author: izonfire | Date: Sat, 10/24/2020, 6:39PM EST | |
I’m gonna try to connect shortly. We’ll see... |
1959. Author: Whistlebritches | Date: Sun, 10/25/2020, 11:22AM EST | |
Had a good time with you azzhat's.............I won't wait so long between visits from now on |
1960. Author: corey sellers | Date: Sun, 10/25/2020, 11:31AM EST | |
Haha I usually don't stay on that long it was a good time dam the rum got good fast. |
1961. Author: Whistlebritches | Date: Sun, 10/25/2020, 11:41AM EST | |
corey sellers wrote:Haha I usually don't stay on that long it was a good time dam the rum got good fast. I'm kind of intrigued by a backwoods hillbilly who sits around dranking boat drinks........pinky out,all while telling us how thrilling it is to find a nanny goat with her head stuck in the fence.We need to party together. |
1962. Author: corey sellers | Date: Sun, 10/25/2020, 11:51AM EST | |
It would be fun no doubt about it brother. |
1963. Author: Whistlebritches | Date: Sun, 10/25/2020, 2:53PM EST | |
corey sellers wrote:It would be fun no doubt about it brother. Well you ever been to Vegas???Once this **** ing pandemic is behind us there will be one helluva Vegas herf.Hoping for October next year........and there ain't nothing virtual about it Brother,great times and memories made there |
1964. Author: corey sellers | Date: Sun, 10/25/2020, 3:02PM EST | |
Never been to Vegas sounds like a good time. |
1965. Author: Palama | Date: Sun, 10/25/2020, 3:56PM EST | |
corey sellers wrote:Never been to Vegas sounds like a good time. Iffin' Z drives down in his van, you can experience what only a few have felt. Just ask Ron, he knows best.... |
1966. Author: corey sellers | Date: Sun, 10/25/2020, 3:58PM EST | |
Haha, you ever seen Deliverance... |
1967. Author: Palama | Date: Sun, 10/25/2020, 7:08PM EST | |
corey sellers wrote:Haha, you ever seen Deliverance... You made your acting debut as the banjo boy? |
1968. Author: DrafterX | Date: Sun, 10/25/2020, 7:17PM EST | |
|
1969. Author: corey sellers | Date: Mon, 10/26/2020, 4:54AM EST | |
Haha wish I could play a banjo that good |
1970. Author: bgz | Date: Sat, 10/31/2020, 1:39PM EST | |
Someone playing the banjo on the vherf? |
1971. Author: MACS | Date: Sat, 10/31/2020, 1:56PM EST | |
Gervontae Davis vs Leo Santa Cruz tonight... gonna have to watch that. I think if Santa Cruz can stay upright past 5, he can wear out Davis. |
1972. Author: MACS | Date: Sat, 10/31/2020, 5:24PM EST | |
Logged in... |
1973. Author: corey sellers | Date: Sat, 10/31/2020, 5:43PM EST | |
Whos on |
1974. Author: BuckyB93 | Date: Sat, 10/31/2020, 10:48PM EST | |
My apologies to everyone who was on vherf tonight. |
1975. Author: BuckyB93 | Date: Sat, 10/31/2020, 11:17PM EST | |
PM me Leo's mailing addy please |
1976. Author: tonygraz | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 7:38AM EST | |
What did I miss ? |
1977. Author: BuckyB93 | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 7:44AM EST | |
Bunch of sillyness |
1978. Author: bgz | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 8:55AM EST | |
Missed bucky trying to trip my drunk ass up... haven't been quizzed like that since college. Had to go back after the fact to make sure I didn't screw anything up... other than forgetting an important word in a definition... I was on point.
Oh, and I misquoted the definition of a linear function... i said it was of the form ax = c... the actual definition is ax + b = 0.... but they're equivalent.
|
1979. Author: corey sellers | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 9:33AM EST | |
haha, I had fun as usual fellas. |
1980. Author: BuckyB93 | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 9:46AM EST | |
ax = c equivalent to ax + b = 0?
ax = c is equal to ax + b = 0 if b = -c.
The most basic equation of a linear function (basic algebra)
y = mx + b
Where m is the slope of the line and b it is the y-intercept.
OR you can write it in "function" form, same thing just different format or words
f(x) = mx + b "function of x" equals m*x + b
pick x = 5... so in words... function of x when x = 5
f(5) = m(5) + b
Here's a little practice if you want. You can play with the variables and see how it shifts the line (linear function)
http://zonalandeducation.com/mmts/functionInstitute/linearFunctions/new/lsif0.php |
1981. Author: rfenst | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 10:24AM EST | |
Geez, and here I thought this was a discount cigar forum... |
1982. Author: Notthe1 | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 10:42AM EST | |
Had a good night on the Herf. Hope you all enjoyed seeing "Drunk Leo" again!! |
1983. Author: MACS | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 10:47AM EST | |
I was busy being drunk MACS, so I didn't notice. |
1984. Author: bgz | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 10:49AM EST | |
Yes, if you let b = -c, the two functions are equivalent.
That's all it takes to show they're equivalent.
You're harping on very low level fundamental sh*t that's taken for granted.
I'm not disagreeing with you on the definition.
let y = f(x) = ax - c = 0
Is functionally equivalent if b = -c in the original equation ax = c (edit... came back and looked on it... though defined previously, it's not in this post)
f(x) = ax + b = 0
I misquoted a definition after a night of sitting with you azzhats drinking and smoking... I acknowledged as such without you saying a word about it.
Just admit you're trying to catch me up in some low level detail to show that any argument that I had at a higher level detail that may put doubt in one of your beliefs. That says more about your insecurities in your own beliefs than it does about mine. Seriously, you quizzed me all the way down, I gave you plenty to expand on, but you chose to take it down to the lowest of levels before you started your expansion... that's telling.
You could have quizzed me on complex conjugates or something... but you didn't. |
1985. Author: corey sellers | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 10:52AM EST | |
Glad I left when I did haha. |
1986. Author: tonygraz | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 12:31PM EST | |
So Bucky got his nerd on ? |
1987. Author: Abrignac | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 7:06PM EST | |
Whistlebritches wrote:Well you ever been to Vegas???Once this **** ing pandemic is behind us there will be one helluva Vegas herf.Hoping for October next year........and there ain't nothing virtual about it Brother,great times and memories made there Hopefully, we can have a large get together in Vegas next year. I’m recently divorced and I understand things when that happens a trip to Vegas is mandatory? |
1988. Author: ZRX1200 | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 7:07PM EST | |
Yes, Ron is a great dance partner |
1989. Author: 8trackdisco | Date: Sun, 11/1/2020, 7:18PM EST | |
BuckyB93 wrote:ax = c equivalent to ax + b = 0?
ax = c is equal to ax + b = 0 if b = -c.
The most basic equation of a linear function (basic algebra)
y = mx + b
Where m is the slope of the line and b it is the y-intercept.
OR you can write it in "function" form, same thing just different format or words
f(x) = mx + b "function of x" equals m*x + b
pick x = 5... so in words... function of x when x = 5
f(5) = m(5) + b
Here's a little practice if you want. You can play with the variables and see how it shifts the line (linear function)
http://zonalandeducation.com/mmts/functionInstitute/linearFunctions/new/lsif0.php ^ See? THIS is why you are swimming in poon. Women LOVE ❤️ guys use sexy talk like this. |
1990. Author: BuckyB93 | Date: Mon, 11/2/2020, 12:45AM EST | |
bgz wrote:Yes, if you let b = -c, the two functions are equivalent.
That's all it takes to show they're equivalent.
You're harping on very low level fundamental sh*t that's taken for granted.
I'm not disagreeing with you on the definition.
let y = f(x) = ax - c = 0
Is functionally equivalent if b = -c in the original equation ax = c (edit... came back and looked on it... though defined previously, it's not in this post)
f(x) = ax + b = 0
I misquoted a definition after a night of sitting with you azzhats drinking and smoking... I acknowledged as such without you saying a word about it.
Just admit you're trying to catch me up in some low level detail to show that any argument that I had at a higher level detail that may put doubt in one of your beliefs. That says more about your insecurities in your own beliefs than it does about mine. Seriously, you quizzed me all the way down, I gave you plenty to expand on, but you chose to take it down to the lowest of levels before you started your expansion... that's telling.
You could have quizzed me on complex conjugates or something... but you didn't. Not sure where the insecurities part came from. After listening to the drunk and stoned random babble on how the schrodinger equation proved or disproved the existence of God, then something about electrons being a quantum particle, followed by talk of wave functions, the CERN particle accelerator, rifts in time, parallel universes and any other big physics words you learned from the most recent book you read… I felt you should be able to try to explain the basics of linear algebra. So I admit, I was trying to catch you on some low level details. It was an easy (but not fair) target. Figured that you should be able to come up with the cookie cutter definition of a straight line (which you probably couldn’t walk at the time) before jumping into quantum mechanics or complex conjugates and how they relate to a Supreme Being. So, yeah, I’m completely secure with my understanding of linear algebra. Are you? Find the equation of the line passing through (1,2) with a slope of –(4/5). Write your answer in slope-intercept ( y = m*x + b ) If not, then maybe it’s a bit too soon to tackle complex conjugates or particle wave duality. (I'm not a high energy physics guy, most of my background is in materials. The closest I've come to high energy physics is when I cut my teeth working on NbTi, Nb3Ti low temp superconductors - the wire used to make the magnets for CERN. Then I rode the wave of contracts, SBIR's, CRADA's, etc... and any other funding we could milk out of the government and private companies to do R&D on high temp BSCCO and YBCO superconductors. Wanna get trippy, read up how they think superconductivity works: BCS theory and Cooper pairs. More quantum mechanical stuff within condensed states of matter) |
1991. Author: izonfire | Date: Mon, 11/2/2020, 12:57AM EST | |
Wrong forum n00ps. You’re looking for the nerd forum... |
1992. Author: BuckyB93 | Date: Mon, 11/2/2020, 1:18AM EST | |
No way man. You go there and you get weggies, swirllies and $#!T |
1993. Author: Palama | Date: Mon, 11/2/2020, 2:02AM EST | |
ZRX1200 wrote:Yes, Ron is a great dance partner Bet this is your favorite song: https://youtu.be/Q4ggEyx9dKc |
1994. Author: bgz | Date: Mon, 11/2/2020, 2:33AM EST | |
You're right, I was pretty loaded...
Anyway, my bad... I was just talkin sh*t.
My background is computer science, in school... run time of algorithms and such, in the real world... not so much...
I enjoyed the talk even though I was loaded, I believe I gave the disclaimer as such.
Unfortunately I don't get to use advanced math that much (or at all really) in what I do, so I decided to start learning the math behind quantum mechanics (thanks to CelticBomber I actually decided to buy a book)... as It has become a hobby to study it.
As you know, there are requirements to this... so as a result, I have to brush up on my math after 20 years since I graduated, so yes, I've been rambling about it a lot because I've been thinking about it a lot more now that I've been actively hitting the books.
The insecurities jab was just that...just a talk sh*t jab... and I got what I wanted, a few jabs back!
Well, here you go on your latest quiz question:
y = mx + b => 2 = (-4/5)(1) + b b = 2 + 4/5 = 10/5 + 4/5 = 14/5
Seriously though, I did enjoy your quiz the other night, I could have declined the rabbit hole you started going down, but I chose to play. It was good for my own knowledge, and I did spend a good portion of the day on lower level stuff thanks to you, and I look forward to next time.
Oh... I'll probably still get f*cked up and ramble though, think we're all guilty of that...
for f(x) = x f`(x) = 1 Intgral of x is (x^2)/2 + C
derivative is the tangent line or slope which measures the change in something vs something else... like d/dx or dy/dx, or dx/dt, or stuff like dy/dx = dy/du * du/dx, or the little squiggly ds for partials working on multivariable functions (yes, I've been reviewing my calc too)...
Things I've reviewed so far in linear algebra in my 20 year stint is matrix row reduction, determining whether a system of equations is linearly independent (no free variables), etc...
Limited time has been put in to matrix operations so far other than multiplication, and the rules and such. Briefly read about inversion, determinants, and ... skipped a bunch of stuff and jumped to Eigenvalues/vectors/spaces (which is pretty much where I'm at now).
Most of it has been pretty quick review... not going to torture myself with this hobby as I have no desire to one day be physics professor or anything, as I said, it's just a hobby. I just want to learn the math behind quantum mechanics for my own sake.
Assignments I did in college... if I remember right was to approximate the integration of e^-x to some place and I used Gaussian quadrature to do it... I'm name dropping here... as I no longer remember any details of Gaussian quadrature. Another was to implement a Fast Fourier Transform algorithm... I remember the gist of how it worked... mapping to the complex plane and back and such... though I don't remember the exact details. The point is, if I wanted to, I could go back and I could refresh my head on these things I've already done before, and I would understand them, though I may not be able to explain everything when quizzed.
Admittedly I'm rusty and can't recall textbook definitions of things off the top of my head when put on the spot (but I could still envision a line from 0, 0 going to a point with a little arrow after it) after a night of drinking and getting stoned as you put it... but I do know a thing or two about a thing or two.
Hopefully that's enough to satisfy your desire to determine whether I've actually been through the ringer or not...
|
1995. Author: CelticBomber | Date: Mon, 11/2/2020, 9:54AM EST | |
Gimmie your lunch money nerds. Come talk to daddy when you get to the Greek Alphabet.
ΔxΔp≥h4π Δ x Δ p ≥ h 4 π
Is it always true?
|
1996. Author: bgz | Date: Mon, 11/2/2020, 10:08AM EST | |
Thinking about this a little more, I pose the question... why not talk about big ideas or study advanced math even if you're not a MIT or Cal Tech professor... or if your career doesn't call for you to keep up on your low level fundamental definitions?
Seriously, a lot of what I talked about came from the brains of such beings (I've watched discussions Sean Carrol, lectures by Brian Green, a couple lectures from this dude at MIT that I don't remember his name). Admittedly I regurgitated a lot of of what many people who have put in far more time into the thought than I have and gave very convincing arguments... but it doesn't mean I haven't read or studied about it or that I can't comprehend what's being said. It doesn't mean that If they say something I'm not comfortable with, that I can't go research it on my own.
I mean, by that logic, nobody should ever study high level concepts unless they're in a position to constantly keep up with their fundamentals to a level of where they can recall definition from something they haven't seen since jr. high school. I mean, you gain a vocabulary of "big words" by reading about topics... and when you read about topics you see the math.
By that logic we shouldn't be able to study anything that oscillates if we don't have all trig identities and properties memorized. |
1997. Author: bgz | Date: Mon, 11/2/2020, 10:30AM EST | |
CelticBomber wrote:Gimmie your lunch money nerds. Come talk to daddy when you get to the Greek Alphabet.
ΔxΔp≥h4π Δ x Δ p ≥ h 4 π
Is it always true?
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says (change in x)(change in momentum) >= (hbar)/2 h4(pi) = 2(hbar) so you're asking if... (change in x)(change in momentum) >= 2hbar (change in x)(change in momentum) >= 2hbar Intuitively I would say no... (admittedly it's a guess). I'll leave it to the resident fundamental expert to properly explain it and show why it's true or false. |
1998. Author: BuckyB93 | Date: Mon, 11/2/2020, 10:52AM EST | |
Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Ohm driving down the coast.
They get pulled over. Heisenberg is driving and the cop asks him, "Do you know how fast you were going?"
"No, but I know exactly where I am," Heisenberg replies.
The cop says, "You were doing 55 in a 35." Heisenberg throws up his hands and shouts, "Great! Now I'm lost!"
Finding this suspicious, the cop orders him to pop open the trunk. He checks it out and says, "Do you know you have a dead cat back here?"
"We do now, a$$hole!" shouts Schrodinger.
The cop moves to arrest them. Ohm resists. |
1999. Author: bgz | Date: Mon, 11/2/2020, 11:16AM EST | |
Rofl |
2000. Author: izonfire | Date: Mon, 11/2/2020, 11:40AM EST | |
Hey turd burglars!!! This is the VHerf forum! Quit hijacking the thread you fucques!
Start a nerd forum and stroke yourselves all the live long day... |