33 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
Retard here. I'm writing a story and need some chemfag to explain some stuff about alkali metals reacting with water to me.
So far, i've only found out lithium to generate the weakest explosion, and francium to be the strongest, yet francium being super dangerous i'm more interested in caesium.
I wanna know what the intensity of said explosion depends on, apart from the element, IE, if water volume plays a role and how significant, or if submerging the thing would make it work differently.
Also, I'm interested in how efficient this could be as a propellant, energy wise, if done inside a barrel, compared to say, black powder.
Could it generate similar force using small samples of potassium/rubidium/caesium?
Let me stress i know close to nothing about this and google hasn't been of much help.
52 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
Will chess be solved in the 21st century, /sci/? I think it will be solved before 2050, but wiki repeats a bold claim to the contrary.
A "solved game" is a game where the eventual outcome is known, in the situation where both sides play perfectly. Examples of solved games include tic tac toe, connect four, and checkers.
I think an 8x8 grid, half full of pieces, already quite tractable for play (by computers) against master humans, will be decided within 40 years, as computing keeps going. The research is just too far along for the researchers not to take things to their logical conclusion and "ruin" chess for good. :^)
I haven't kept up with Go, however. Last I checked, they don't even have a decent algorithm to compete with a competent kid yet, let alone "solving" that bean-counter of a game.
Reminder that CS is science
44 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
Computer Science is the science of computation; that much seems clear. Less clear is how to define science and computation in a useful and meaningful way.
Generally, we might divide science according to two classifications: formal versus empirical, and pure versus applied. Whereas formal science (such as mathematics and much of computer science) relies on deductive reasoning from assumed truths, empirical scienc (such as physics and chemistry) relies on inductive reasoning from observed phenomena. Whereas the goal of pure science is to advance the state of scientific understanding, the goal of applied science is to use such understanding to harness the forces of Nature (in the broadest possible sense of the word) to achieve other goals.
We might define computation as a transformation applied to a piece of information. In the broadest possible sense, computation is, then, any process which causes a change to occur in the universe. There is no need to provide any more detailed definition than this.
Computer Science, then, consists of that part of the human endeavor which satisfies the following criteria:
It is science, that is:
It is either (1) formal or (2) empirical:
1. employs deductive reasoning from assumed truths
2. employs inductive reasoning from observed phenomena
It is either (1) pure or (2) applied
1. seeks to advance the state of scientific understanding
2. seeks to apply scientific understanding to harness natural forces
It studies computation, that is:
It studies either (1) transformations or (2) information
processes which map information from one form to another
entities subject to transformations
36 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
Are the smartest people you know socially awkward or weird? All the exceptionally smart people I know were the Richard Feynman type, i.e. they had great social wit and you wouldn't know they were smart until you saw them rek a test. In my highschool, all the top 20 were jock WASP offspring. Granted the top 15 were just slightly above average with great work ethic, the top 5 were truly exceptional. All the gaming neckbeards, who stereotypes would dictate would be smart, were actually dumb as rocks.