In article <DOCONNOR.91Nov6091...@titania.srg.UUCP>, docon...@srg.UUCP (Dennis O'Connor x4982) writes:
>] The casinos don't know where the roulette ball will stop or what the >] next roll of the dice will reveal, but they DO know the probablities >] of each outcome and they DO know that in the long run they get to keep >] X percent of all the money that is bet. >] P.S. >] Does anybody know what X is for the typical Las Vegas casino? (It's a >] helluva lot lower that the 50% that the state lottery keeps!)
>The roulette take depends on the number of "zeroes" on the wheel, >since the house always wins on a zero.
Not quite true. You ARE allowed to bet on zero, so the house doesn't always win on it. What IS true is that the payoffs are based on the probabilities calculated without the zeros taken into account. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: C...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
gra...@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes: >The casinos don't know where the roulette ball will stop or what the >next roll of the dice will reveal, but they DO know the probablities >of each outcome and they DO know that in the long run they get to keep >X percent of all the money that is bet. >Does anybody know what X is for the typical Las Vegas casino? (It's a >helluva lot lower that the 50% that the state lottery keeps!)
It depends on the game. The slot machines are the worst for the player, and blackjack is the best. I believe it averages out to about 3%. -- Mother's Day: Nine months after Father's day
Well, it seems to me that science is based on fact, the best most religions ( especially Christian ) has is history, which might not be the absolute truth because it was written from the point of view of those who preached it.
DONNING FIRE PROOF SUIT
Still, I wouldn't throw all religion away, because some good has come out off it, though it can be very doubtful when it mixes with politics.
In article <1991Oct24.055933.1...@compuram.bbt.se> p...@compuram.bbt.se writes: >k...@3D.com (Kevin D. Quitt) writes: >Maybe you could take a Rolls-Royce car, dismount it and produce a >Cadillac, by a lot of mechanic work. That would only show that those >two cars are made out of similar materials (iron, plastic, etc.). It >would still not show where the original Rolls-Royce came from.
Evolution is not X turning into Y, it's X descending into X1, and X2, with X1 and X2 having been in mutual isolation long enough to become different enough that they become incompatible.
Even then, there may be an X3 compatible with X1, and with X2, just like there's dialects of German between "standard" German and Dutch.
If evolution didn't exist, we'd all have the same skin color. Humans have branched off too. They just haven't been isolated enough to have diverged. But it makes no sense to aceept the phenomenon of branching and yet place arbitrary limits on how far divergence could go. Common sense alone says that if two groups are allowed to develop apart from one another long enough they will eventually become incompatible. You see that with languages all over the place, you see it with cultures, and even religions and other cognitive structures, not just with biological hardware.
dbn7...@rigel.tamu.edu (NASH, DAVID BENNETT III) writes:
>Simple natural selection drives evolution. Natural selection killed the >dinosaurs and allowed the newly mutated mammals (another random mutation) >to survive. We say that the most adaptable creature is the one most evolved, >but what that means is that it had all of the right mutations to allow its >species to survive through the years.
Just a minor nit-pick: the mammals were not 'newly mutated'. In fact some evidence shows that they even predated the emergenge of dinosoars. Of course, they continued to change, so in that sense they are still newly mutated. But they were not a brand new class of animal at about the time of the dinosoars' disappearance.
-- Regards,
Ron House. (s64...@zeus.usq.edu.au) (By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)
>In article <1991Nov4.213150.1...@wpi.WPI.EDU>, dr...@wpi.WPI.EDU (Eric Ant Von Laudermann) writes: >>really "known"? Is the cat STILL sorta-alive-sorta-dead until the scientists >>get there? I would think so. >Disclaimer: I only took two years of undergrad physics at Caltech, so I'm not >an expert. The fact that the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment exists at all >is an indication of the fact that scientists are not immune to mysticism. In >my opinion, the proper answer to the question "What is the state of the cat >before we open the box?" is simply "I don't know." As I understand it (if I'm >wrong, would someone please explain to me how I'm wrong?), the Copenhagen >interpretation is not an essential part of QM. It's just one way of >"interpreting" the equations. There are other interpretations. They all use >the same equations. Whenever something observable is predicted, they predict >the same thing. They differ on what the unobservable states are. If this is >correct, then without the mysticism, when asked the state of the cat before the >box is opened, a physicist would simply answer, "Unobservable."
You are right and wrong. The Copenhagen interpretation _is_, as you say, just one possible interpretation, and, in a nutshell, it says, if a quantity has no possibility of being measured, or to have some effect, we do not _have_ to incorporate it, or an explanation for it, in our theories. So far so good. As for the cat, noone has ever done (or ever probably will) do a critical experiment on the state of the cat, so again, as you say, the right answer is 'don't know'. But there is a big rider on this. The lack of definite values of certain unobservables is experimentally established. For example, in a two slit experiment, say with electrons, you are probably tempted to say "obviously each particular electron Either went through one slit OR it went through the other. Not so. The experiment would have a different result if it were so. It really and truly is that the electron was in a linear superposition of the states <went through slit A> and <went through slit B>. Often thought incomprehensible, or unmeasureable, but it has been verified.
-- Regards,
Ron House. (s64...@zeus.usq.edu.au) (By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)
gra...@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes: >c...@sol1.gps.caltech.edu (Carl J Lydick): >> Disclaimer: I only took two years of undergrad physics at Caltech, so >> I'm not an expert. The fact that the Schrodinger's cat thought >> experiment exists at all is an indication of the fact that scientists >> are not immune to mysticism. In my opinion, the proper answer to the >> question "What is the state of the cat before we open the box?" is >> simply "I don't know." >Ah, although we don't know the actual state before we do the >observation, we DO know the probablity distribution that we will >observe if we do repeated trials. That makes the correct answer: >I don't know, _but_ there is a probablity of 0.5 that it is alive, and >a probability of 0.5 that it is dead.
Sorry, you clearly don't understand the physics. See my other post.
-- Regards,
Ron House. (s64...@zeus.usq.edu.au) (By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)
In article <s64421.689515152@zeus> s64...@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) writes:
[...]
>is experimentally established. For example, in a two slit experiment, say >with electrons, you are probably tempted to say "obviously each particular >electron Either went through one slit OR it went through the other. Not >so. The experiment would have a different result if it were so. It >really and truly is that the electron was in a linear superposition >of the states <went through slit A> and <went through slit B>. Often >thought incomprehensible, or unmeasureable, but it has been verified.
The reason it is often thought incomprehensible is because we assign mental representations to subatomic "particles" like the electron that are not accurate. The word electron conjures up an image of a neat little basketball of electric charge orbiting around the grape-cluster of neutrons and protons that make up the nucleus. That makes for nice mental imagery but it is false imagery, and it leads one to have false expectations about what one would expect to be observed.
The properties of electrons, protons, etc., are different from that of any "objects" that we can perceive. Therefore, when we imagine them as "objects", we find that their properties don't make sense to us.
There is nothing intrinsically mystical about these properties. They are just different from anything we are able to observe or interact with directly.
>You are right and wrong. The Copenhagen interpretation _is_, as you say, >just one possible interpretation, and, in a nutshell, it says, if a >quantity has no possibility of being measured, or to have some effect,
I thought is said that observation by a qualified observer collapses the wave function.
>we do not _have_ to incorporate it, or an explanation for it, in our >theories. So far so good. As for the cat, noone has ever done (or >ever probably will) do a critical experiment on the state of the cat, >so again, as you say, the right answer is 'don't know'. But there is a >big rider on this. The lack of definite values of certain unobservables >is experimentally established. For example, in a two slit experiment, say >with electrons, you are probably tempted to say "obviously each particular >electron Either went through one slit OR it went through the other.
No, I'd also include the possibility that it went through both, as would a wave.
>Not so. The experiment would have a different result if it were so.
Agreed. So far, though, we haven't touched on the Copehagen interpretation of this experiment; only on what the equations say.
>It really and truly is that the electron was in a linear superposition >of the states <went through slit A> and <went through slit B>.
I thought is was merely that the amplitude of the wave function was a linear combinations of the amplitudes you'd get if you only had one slit or the other.
>Often thought incomprehensible, or unmeasureable, but it has been verified.
But you haven't touched on the Copenhagen interpretation-specific claims about what went on, which are that the electron state was unresolved until a qualified observer looked at the results. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, if I understand it correctly, we could run the experiment up to the point where the scientist looks at the results the equipment recorded. If he looks at the result, the wave function collapses and we get one result. If instead, he smashes the equipment, then the electron's state remains unresolved. You still haven't cited any experimental evidence that this is the case. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: C...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
In article <1991Nov8.185151.16...@cco.caltech.edu> c...@sol1.gps.caltech.edu writes: >But you haven't touched on the Copenhagen interpretation-specific claims about >what went on, which are that the electron state was unresolved until a >qualified observer looked at the results. According to the Copenhagen >interpretation, if I understand it correctly, we could run the experiment up to >the point where the scientist looks at the results the equipment recorded. If >he looks at the result, the wave function collapses and we get one result. If >instead, he smashes the equipment, then the electron's state remains >unresolved. You still haven't cited any experimental evidence that this is the >case.
But there may in fact be some evidence that this is not the case. See the November issue of Scientific American, "Quantum Pinball A quantum system can be observed without an observer".
> I don't know anything about the Sea grass, but I heard something different >about the moths in G.B. that makes more sense to me. For a species of moth >to change from white to black that quickly would be pretty tough. Those >things take more time. What I heard happened is that all the pollution in >the air made the white moths stand out so that they were wiped out by the >birds. The dark moths, which existed at the same time as the white moths, >were naturally hidden. Thus it was a matter of simple natural selection, >and not genetic evolution. I wouldn't call the extermination of a species >evolution.
>Tim Eckert
Point well taken. We discussed this example in an anthropology class I took. I don't think they have enough information about this case to say whether or not the black moths had been previously hidden, or were just a mutation that popped up and became successful. I think they are definitely sure that the black and white moths are the same species, which implies they can breed together. The species isn't extinct - it is just that the white moths seem to be gone (all gone?)
The theory is that evolution works by the process of natural selection, so I interpret this example as an example of evolution.
In article <s64421.689515152@zeus> s64...@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) writes:
| ... The lack of definite values of certain unobservables | is experimentally established. For example, in a two slit experiment, say | with electrons, you are probably tempted to say "obviously each particular | electron Either went through one slit OR it went through the other. Not | so. The experiment would have a different result if it were so. It | really and truly is that the electron was in a linear superposition | of the states <went through slit A> and <went through slit B>. Often | thought incomprehensible, or unmeasureable, but it has been verified.
Has this experiment been constructed so that the electron could be known not to have gone through both slits at once? After all, an electron isn't a billiard ball. From the point of view of physical observation -- our observation -- an electron seems more like a cloud of electron-probabilities. I don't know that any physical structure for an electron has ever been postulated, much less observed. While _we_ find it difficult to be in two places at one time, except in explaining what we were doing at work when no one could find us, electrons may do it as a matter of course. -- * Gordon Fitch | g...@panix.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf *
>In article <1991Oct29.184727.3...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> erisa...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (erin s anderson) writes:
>>I agree >>that the Quantum theory is quite the harsh blow to God.
>What I meant to say was, I DON'T think Quantum theory is a blow to God at all. >Because a) one major attribute of God is that He can break the rules, and >b) I don't understand quantum theory that much. :-)
>I would think that whether or not a quantum uncertainty is KNOWN depends on >who knows it, and what he does. If, at the end of the Schrodinger's Cat >experiment (yes I know it's just a metaphor, nobody actually ever did it), >the first scientist to arrive on the scene checks the cat (and if it's alive, >he removes the poison or whatever, so the result won't change when the other >scientists get there), then jumps out the window and falls thirty stories to >his death, without recording whether the cat is alive or dead... is the result >really "known"? Is the cat STILL sorta-alive-sorta-dead until the scientists >get there? I would think so.
I meant it would be a blow to God in the people's eyes who follow them. But I do agree (and find amusment) with your statement.
In article <1991Oct26.051403.18...@wpi.WPI.EDU> dr...@wpi.WPI.EDU (Eric Ant Von Laudermann) writes:
>Keep in mind that science is the study of the physical Universe, and that >religion is the study of everything else. bun...@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes: >no sorry that is ART. Religeon is just the chains around humanities ankles In article <jan.688748978@afrodite> j...@cs.umu.se (Jan T}ngring) writes: >To be more precise about how different disciplines relate to REALITY: >Science deals with predictions of the behaviour of it. >Engineering creates tools for shaping it at our will. >Philosophy is about understanding it. >Art is for experiencing it. >Religion is for escaping it.
To be even more precise as to the terms: Science is the quest for knowledge Engineering is the practice of making engines Philosophy is the quest for knowledge Religion is something to soothe one's fear of death and irrelevance Art is utter nonsense (except mine)
>In article <1991Oct26.051403.18...@wpi.WPI.EDU> dr...@wpi.WPI.EDU (Eric Ant Von Laudermann) writes: >>Keep in mind that science is the study of the physical Universe, and that >>religion is the study of everything else.
>bun...@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes: >>no sorry that is ART. Religeon is just the chains around humanities ankles
>In article <jan.688748978@afrodite> j...@cs.umu.se (Jan T}ngring) writes: >>To be more precise about how different disciplines relate to REALITY: >>Science deals with predictions of the behaviour of it. >>Engineering creates tools for shaping it at our will. >>Philosophy is about understanding it. >>Art is for experiencing it. >>Religion is for escaping it.
>To be even more precise as to the terms: >Science is the quest for knowledge >Engineering is the practice of making engines
engineering, from the latin.... Ingenuity, or applied science. Not much to do with engines at all really...
>Philosophy is the quest for knowledge >Religion is something to soothe one's fear of death and irrelevance >Art is utter nonsense (except mine)
Annal Natrach, Usthvah Spethed, c...@ecr.mu.oz.au Dochoel Dienve Chem Eng, uni of Melbourne
Merlin, where are you? Call your dragon, to weave a mist...
In article <9131711.10...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, c...@ecr.mu.oz.au (Ivan the TERRIBLE) writes:
>>Engineering is the practice of making engines
>engineering, from the latin.... Ingenuity, or applied science. Not much >to do with engines at all really...
But look at the definition of "engine" from the time the word engineer came into the English language. You'll find that things like catapults were classed as "engines" (in particular, siege engines) back then. The older definition of "engine" doesn't have much to do with engines as we define them today at all really. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: C...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
In article <1991Nov13.020859.22...@cco.caltech.edu> c...@sol1.gps.caltech.edu writes: >In article <9131711.10...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, c...@ecr.mu.oz.au (Ivan the TERRIBLE) writes: >>>Engineering is the practice of making engines
>>engineering, from the latin.... Ingenuity, or applied science. Not much >>to do with engines at all really...
>But look at the definition of "engine" from the time the word engineer came >into the English language. You'll find that things like catapults were classed >as "engines" (in particular, siege engines) back then. The older definition of >"engine" doesn't have much to do with engines as we define them today at all >really.
true, but engines were called engines because engineers made them! That's not *all* engineers do, I assure you!! That's also why modern engines are called engines......
Annal Natrach, Usthvah Spethed, c...@ecr.mu.oz.au Dochoel Dienve Chem Eng, uni of Melbourne
Merlin, where are you? Call your dragon, to weave a mist...
In article <1991Nov4.191820.6...@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnic...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
> Hmmm. India clearly can make fission weapons, but as far as I >know, they have not exploded a fusion device. In the absense of such >a fusion bomb test, how can Inda have killed people with them? Ditto >for covert members of the nuclear club, like Israel and South >Africa.
Whoops, I was wrong in making the assumption that a country that develops fission weapons, would naturally go onto developing fusion weapons as well. Which countries have developed fusion weapons, aside from the US and the USSR?
The deaths I was refering to would have been from directly nuclear related effects, either from manufacture or detonation. -- <-:(= Anthony Stieber anth...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony
From: Truyen C. Lam <cmsclam> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 14:11:05 -0500 To: arvand
>From LAI...@UMDD.UMD.EDU Fri Nov 15 14:03:14 1991
Received: from umdd.umd.edu by csc-srv.wam.umd.edu
>I received this letter on e-mail. I donot know how and why I was the >selected lucky one. But if any body knows anything about these things >to explain to me what is the purpose and meaning of such letters and what >the sender(s) are trying to accomplish, I would appreciated the info.
Dear everybody:
With Love, All Things Are Possible
This paper has been sent to you for good luck. The original came from New England. It has been around the world nine times. The luck has now been sent to you. You will receive good luck within four days of receiving this letter - provided you in turn send it out.
This is no joke. You will recieve good luck in the mail. SEND NO MONEY. Send copies to people you think need good luck. Don't send money, as fate has no price. Do not keep this letter. It must leave your hands within 96 hours.
An AAF Officer received $470,000.00. Lee Elliot received $40,000.00 and lost it because he broke the chain. While in the Philippines, Gene Welch lost his wife 51 days after receiving the letter. He failed to circulate the letter. However, before her death he received $7,750,000.00
Please send twenty copies and see what happens in four days. The chain comes from Venezuela and was written by St. Anthony DeGread, a missionary from South America. Since the copy must tour the world, you must make twenty copies and send them to friends and associates. After a few days you will get a surprise -- this is true! -- even if you are not superstitious.
Do not do the following: Constantine Dias received the chain in 1953. He asked his secretary to make twenty copies and send them out. A few days later she won the lottery of two million dollars. Coral Daddit, an office employee, received the letter and forgot it had to leave his hands in 96 hours. He lost his job. Later, after finding the letter again, he mailed twenty copies. A few days later, he got a better job. Dalan Fairchild received the letter and not believing, threw the letter away, nine days later, he died.
In 1987, the letter was received by a young woman in California. It was very faded and barely readable. She promised herself that she would retype the letter and send it on, but she put it aside to do later. She was plagued with various problems, including expensive car repairs. The letter did not leave her hands for 96 hours. She finally typed the letter as promised and mailed them out. She got a new car.
Remember, send no money. Do not ignore this letter!
In article <1991Nov18.152159.8...@wam.umd.edu> a...@wam.umd.edu (Arash Kamangeer) writes: >From: Truyen C. Lam <cmsclam> >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 14:11:05 -0500 >To: arvand
>>From LAI...@UMDD.UMD.EDU Fri Nov 15 14:03:14 1991 >Received: from umdd.umd.edu by csc-srv.wam.umd.edu
>>I received this letter on e-mail. I donot know how and why I was the >>selected lucky one. But if any body knows anything about these things >>to explain to me what is the purpose and meaning of such letters and what >>the sender(s) are trying to accomplish, I would appreciated the info.
[some chain letter or other deleted]
This sort of stuff regularly does the rounds. Being filled with what I would consider superstitious rubbish it has not point that I know of. I'm not sure I've seen this _particular_ letter before but the classic ``carrot and big stick'' seems familiar.
I have noticed at this college the ``selected lucky people'' are foreign students (I thought I had a nice foreign name but I've never received such a ``nice'' letter ;-) )?
Perhaps watch out for people who will shortly approach you telling you you've got a shot at winning a million dollars. ;-)
In article <1991Nov16.221914.11...@uwm.edu> anth...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:
>In article <1991Nov4.191820.6...@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnic...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>> Hmmm. India clearly can make fission weapons, but as far as I >>know, they have not exploded a fusion device. In the absense of such >>a fusion bomb test, how can Inda have killed people with them? Ditto >>for covert members of the nuclear club, like Israel and South >>Africa.
>Whoops, I was wrong in making the assumption that a country that >develops fission weapons, would naturally go onto developing >fusion weapons as well. Which countries have developed fusion >weapons, aside from the US and the USSR?
Sometimes nations which have had a hand in developing fission weapons don't even go on to make fission weapons for themselves (Canada comes to mind).
The Official Members of the Thermonuclear club are the USA, the USSR (Dunno who gets the bombs in the event of the USSR disintegrating, but judging from where the Strategic Rocket forces are being relocated to, non-Russians need not apply, even though they paid for them), the UK, France and China. Unofficial members may include Israel and South Africa.
Nations which have detonated fission explosives without officially going on to build thermonuclear weapons seem to limited to a count of one: India. I am unaware of evidence that India has or intends to build their own H-bombs, despite having a neighbor with whom hostilities are fairly frequent, who *is* armed with thermonuclear weapons.
>The deaths I was refering to would have been from directly >nuclear related effects, either from manufacture or detonation.
Sending chain letters on the Internet (and many other networks) is an extremely serious violation of policies and can result in termination of network priviledges, action by the system administators of your site/network connection including termination of your account/access, or disciplinary action if you are at a university, up to and including explusion, and possible legal prosecution. It also wastes limited network resources and annoys countless people, numbering up to the thousands, so *DON'T DO IT!*
a...@wam.umd.edu (Arash Kamangeer) writes: > >I received this letter on e-mail. I donot know how and why I was the > >selected lucky one. But if any body knows anything about these things > >to explain to me what is the purpose and meaning of such letters and what > >the sender(s) are trying to accomplish, I would appreciated the info.
This is very funny. I sent this "chain letter" to 20 people (as requested), but hand delivered, not by email. I didn't think of e-mailing people with chain letters. I would hate it, so I won't do it.
Steve - "You think that's funny?"
--- InterNet: snively....@shark.cse.fau.edu Steve Snively: SysOp of "Time Enough For Love BBS" +1 (215) 449-1902
"Jesus saves, passes| Don't even think that | I'm the only kid in to Moses, he shoots| I'm Christian; Call me | high school that knows HE SCORES!!!" | a Yogi | what a trackstand is.
